18. The above being said, the fact remains that PW-11, who is 70 years old having poor eyesight, has identified the appellant as the person, who attacked him and his wife. The appellant is a neighbor of PW-11. There is no evidence to show that there was any enmity between the appellant and PW-11. No motive has been made known for the attack on PW-11 and his wife by the appellant. As such, there does not appear to be any reason for PW-11 to make any false allegation against the appellant, as the person who attacked him and his wife. Though a lack of motive could weigh heavily against the prosecution in a case of circumstantial evidence, the facts of this case shows that the incident of assault had been seen by PW-11, who is an injured eyewitness. PW-11 has not only identified the appellant, but has also been the recipient of the injuries inflicted upon him by the appellant, besides the appellant having taken away the life of his wife. In the case of Raghubir Singh -vs- State of Punjab , reported in (1996) 9 SCC 233 , the Supreme Court has held that even in the absence of motive, the guilt of the culprit can be established in a given case, if the other evidence on record is trustworthy. It was further held that the absence of proof of motive has never been considered as fatal to the prosecution case, where ocular evidence is found reliable.
