The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal of Chandan, who was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC for the 1993 murder of Rakesh. The Court affirmed the decisions of the Trial and High Courts, relying heavily on the testimony of an eyewitness and corroborative forensic evidence, including a matching blood sample on the weapon used in the crime. The appellant's lack of motive was deemed irrelevant given the direct evidence against him.

1. Case Overview

• The appellant, Chandan, was convicted for the murder of Rakesh on May 28, 1993. The conviction was based on the testimony of an eyewitness, PW-2, who saw Chandan stabbing the victim multiple times in a public area. Despite being advised to take him to the nearest hospital, Rakesh succumbed to his injuries.

2. Forensic Evidence

• The post-mortem report identified multiple stab wounds on the victim's body, with one particularly fatal injury penetrating the chest cavity and causing death. The knife used in the crime was recovered from the appellant, and forensic tests confirmed that the blood on the knife matched the victim's.

3. Eyewitness Testimony

• PW-2, the deceased's sister-in-law, provided a consistent account of the events leading up to and including the stabbing. Despite thorough cross-examination, her testimony remained unshaken and was pivotal in establishing the sequence of events.

4. Apprehension of the Accused

• The appellant was apprehended shortly after the crime, still in possession of the blood-stained knife and wearing a blood-stained shirt. The quick succession of the crime, arrest, and recovery of evidence further supported the prosecution's case.

5. Court's Rationale

• The defense's argument regarding the lack of motive was dismissed by the Court. Citing previous judgments, the Court emphasized that when direct evidence and reliable eyewitness testimony are available, the absence of a motive is inconsequential.

6. Conclusion

• The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the decisions of the lower courts, affirming the conviction and sentence. The appellant, currently on bail, was ordered to surrender within four weeks to serve the remainder of his sentence.