Source: Allahabad High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi held that where ocular evidence appears to be suspected the existence or absence of motive assumes significance.    

• The Allahabad High Court held this in the case of Sunil v. State of Uttar Pradesh. 

What is the Background of Sunil v. State of Uttar Pradesh Case? 

• On 15^th July 2006 at about 9:30 pm complainant Vinod Kumar presented a tehrir containing the facts that occurred on the fateful day. 
• According to this at 7:30 when the complainant was returning he saw that Sunil (Accused) after flinging his wife on the ground was inflicting blows on her head and face with a brick. 
• On her shriek and wailing several other persons gathered on the spot. 
• The investigation was set into motion and the accused was arrested. 
• The chargesheet was filed under Section 304 and Section 452 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 
• The Prosecution presented the evidence and thereafter examination of the accused was done under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). 
• The defence did not adduce any evidence. 
• The present appeal was filed before the High Court against the order of conviction passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The High Court in this case held that where there are circumstantial evidences the complete chain must point towards the guilt of the appellant. 
• The Court held that the prosecution has not examined independent witness despite their availability and presence on spot. 
• While holding the above the Court reiterated certain points for appreciation of evidence. 
  • Delay in filing of FIR:  
    • The Court held that the law is well settled that when the delay in lodging the FIR is well settled it will not at all adversely affect the case of the prosecution.  
    • In case it is not explained the case of the prosecution cannot be discarded on this ground alone, rather a duty is cast on the Court to scrutinize the prosecution evidence with extra care and caution.   
  • Difference Between Related and Interested Witness:  
    • The Court held that ‘related’ witness is not equivalent to ‘interested’ witness.  
    • An interested witness is one who has an interest in the result of the litigation; in a decree of a civil case or in seeing the accused person punished.  
  • Motive: 
    • It was the case of the appellant that no motive was imputed on the accused and hence the case of prosecution should fail. 
    • The Court held in this regard that it is a established canon of law of criminal justice that motive is a sine qua none of a criminal act. 
    • Motive is an important element of committing a crime. 
    • The Court while relying on the precedents held that where there is direct and credible evidence, motive takes a back seat.  
    • However, where the ocular testimony appears to be suspected the existence or absence of motive, acquires some significance. 
    • In the present case there is no direct evidence. Even presence of so called eye witnesses, is doubtful. Therefore motive assumes some importance 
• Thus, the High Court acquitted the accused. 

What is Motive?

• Meaning: 
  • Motive is a desire prompting conduct. It is a desire transformed into a practical incentive or excitant to action. 
  • A motive is a mental state, a desire, necessarily precedes the act for which it furnishes the stimulus. 
  • Motive is the emotion that is supposed to have lead to an act. 
• Difference Between Motive and Intent: 
  • Intent means a conscious objective or purpose to engage in the act which the law forbids. 
  • Intention refers to the immediate purpose with which the act is done. Motive, however, is the ulterior purpose of the act. 
  •  Intent refers to the purpose for which the act is committed and the motive is the reason or cause that impels one to perpetrate it. 
  • Intention refers to the goal or objective behind the act representing a person’s deliberate wish. For example a person buying a knife can buy it for any purpose – killing, cooking or anything else.   
  • Motive on the other hand refers to the underlying cause or impetus behind an action. Motive can be in the form of a person’s motivations or interests or worries. For example a person may commit theft due to financial desperation, greed etc. 
• Relevancy of Motive:  
  • Relevancy of motive is provided for under Section 8 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA). 
  • As per Section 5 of IEA evidence may be given only of fact in issue and relevant fact. 
  • Section 8 of IEA provides that any fact is relevant which shows or constitute: 
    • Motive 
    • Preparation or 
    • Conduct 
    • Of any fact in issue or relevant fact 
  • With respect to conduct Section 8 provides following: 
    • Whose conduct relevant? 
      • Party 
      • Agent of the party 
      • The victim 
    • What kind of conduct relevant? 
      • Conduct in reference to suit or proceeding 
      • Conduct influencing or influenced by fact in issue or relevant fact 
      • It can be previous or subsequent conduct 
  • Explanation 1 of Section 8 provides the word “conduct” in this section does not include statements, unless those statements accompany and explain acts other than statements; but this explanation is not to affect the relevancy of statements under any other section of this Act. 
  • Explanation 2 of Section 8 provides when the conduct of any person is relevant, any statement made to him or in his presence and hearing, which affects such conduct, is relevant. 
  • This is contained in Section 6 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA). 

What are the Case Laws on Evidentiary Value of Motive? 

• Badam Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2004) 
  • The Supreme Court in this case held that “Even though existence of motive loses significance when there is reliable ocular testimony, in a case where the ocular testimony appears to be suspect the existence or absence of motive acquires some significance regarding the probability of the prosecution case.” 
• State of U.P. v. Kishanpal (2008) 
  • The Supreme Court in this case held that it is well settled that where direct evidence of eye witness is available the motive loses all it’s significance. 
  • Thus, where there is not an apparent motive to commit the offence the prosecution can still succeed on the basis of clear and reliable testimony of an eye witness.  
• Nandu Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022) 
  • The Supreme Court in this case held that it is not as if motive alone is a crucial link in the case to be established by the prosecution and in it’s absence the case of prosecution will fail. 
    • However, complete absence of motive definitely weighs in favour of the accused. 
• Anwar Ali v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020) 
  • The Supreme Court in this case observed the principles laid down in various judgments regarding motive as a circumstance for conviction. 
  • The Court observed that in the case of Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar (1995) it was held that if motive is proved that would provide a link in the chain of circumstances of evidence, but the absence of motive cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution case. 
    • At the same time in Babu v. State of Kerela (2010), the Court held that motive in a case depending on circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs in favour of accused.