Motive
Motive of Crime Although in
a criminal case the prosecution is not generally required to prove the motive
of the crime, yet in a case which is essenially based on circumstantial
evidence, motive becomes an important consideration. Zafar and others vs. the
State, 14BLD (HCD)280
Motive
Motive of Murder-When
relevant? In a case of murder involving unnatural brutuality, motive of the
crime becomes a relevant fact and in such a case motive is required to be
proved by the prosecution. Jalal and 3 others Vs. The State, 15BLD (HCD) 588
Ref: 16 DLR 189; 31 DLR 16; 11DLR 258; 7BLD (AD) 1,11 DLR (SC) 38; 35 DLR 339;
2DLR 30; 9 BLD (HCD) 474; 11BLD (HCD) 295; 10BLD (HCD) 236; 10 BLD (AD) 259;
43DLR373; 3DLR(FC)372-Cited
Motive
Motive is not a necessary
ingredient of an offence under section 302 of the Penal Code. The Court will
see if sufficient direct evidence is there or not. If not, motive may be a
matter for consideration, specially when the case is based on circumstantial
evidence. The State Vs. Giasuddin and others, 18BLD (AD) 254
Motive-To consider the circum- stantial evidence in a charge of murder against an accused, motive is a very important element. State vs Abdul Kader @Mobile Kader, 67 DLR (AD) 6
Motive- When there is no eye witness of the incident of killing, the prosecution is required to prove as far as possible the motive of the accused to connect him in the incident. (PER SK SINHA, JAGREEING WITH MD ABDUL WAHHAB MIAH, J) State vs Abdul Kader @ Mobile Kader, 67 DLR (AD) 6
-In case of direct evidence the question of motive is not of much importance. Shah Alam vs State 42 DLR (AD) 31.
Motive- Reporting of any event, occurrence or incident is likely to excite the mind, but if the adding an explanation or comment in the reporting is such that it creates a negative impact and it is the intention of the writer to do so, then his motives become questionable. Ekramul Haque Balbul vs Md Faiz, 67 DLR (AD) 208
Absence of motive demands deeper forensic search of the evidence:
It is true that proof of motive is not necessary to sustain a conviction but when the prosecution puts forward a specific case as to motive for the crime, the evidence regarding the same has to be considered in order to judge the probabilities. Proof of motive satisfies the judicial mind about the likelihood of the authorship of the crime. In its absence, it demands deeper forensic search of the evidence. …Md. Humayun Kabir Vs. The State, (Criminal), 15 SCOB [2021] AD 76
Competency of a child witness to testify:
A child may be allowed to testify, if the court is satisfied that the child is capable of understanding the question put to him and give rational answers to the Court. Before examining a child as a witness the Court should know his intellectual capacity by putting a few simple and ordinary question to him and should also record a brief proceeding of the inquiry. …Md. Humayun Kabir Vs. The State, (Criminal), 15 SCOB [2021] AD 76
The evidentiary value of extra-judicial confession depends upon the veracity of the witnesses to whom it is made and the circumstances in which it is made:
It is the duty of the Court to look into the surrounding circumstances and to find whether the extra-judicial confession is not inspired by any improper or collateral consideration or circumvention of the law suggesting that it may not be true one. The evidentiary value of such statement depends upon the veracity of the witnesses to whom it is made and the circumstances in which it came to be made and actual word used by the accused. Such statement must pass the test of reproduction of exact words, the reason or motive of making such statement. …Md. Humayun Kabir Vs. The State, (Criminal), 15 SCOB [2021] AD 76
When accused is entitled to benefit of doubt:
Court’s decision must rest not upon suspicion but upon legal grounds establish by legal testimony. Mere suspicion, however, strong, cannot take the place of proof. It is well settled principle that where on the evidence two possibilities are open, one which goes in favour of prosecution and the other benefits the accused, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. …Md. Humayun Kabir Vs. The State, (Criminal), 15 SCOB [2021] AD 76
Motive-Proof of motive is never indispensable for conviction when facts are clear it is immaterial to prove the motive. State vs Imran Ali, 69 DLR 135
Motive-To consider the circum- stantial evidence in a charge of murder against an accused, motive is a very important element. State vs Abdul Kader @Mobile Kader, 67 DLR (AD) 6
Motive- When there is no eye witness of the incident of killing, the prosecution is required to prove as far as possible the motive of the accused to connect him in the incident. (PER SK SINHA, JAGREEING WITH MD ABDUL WAHHAB MIAH, J) State vs Abdul Kader @ Mobile Kader, 67 DLR (AD) 6
Motive- Reporting of any event, occurrence or incident is likely to excite the mind, but if the adding an explanation or comment in the reporting is such that it creates a negative impact and it is the intention of the writer to do so, then his motives become questionable. Ekramul Haque Balbul vs Md Faiz, 67 DLR (AD) 208
Motive-Effect-Other evidence. The variation in human nature being so vast, murders are known to have been actuated by much lessor motives. In any case it is not a sine quo non for the success of the prosecution that the motive must be proved. oved. So long as the other evidence remains convincing and is not open to reasonable doubt, a conviction may well be based on it.
Krishna Pillai v. State of Kerala, AIR 1981 SC 1237.
Motive-Circumstantial evidence. In cases where only circumstantial evidence is available at the outset one normally starts looking for the motive and the opportunity to commit the crime. If the evidence shows that the accused having a strong enough motive had the opportunity of committing the crime and the established circumstances on the record considered along with the explanation, if any, of the accused exclude the reasonable possibility of any one else being the real culprit then the claim of evidence can be consi- dered to be so complete as to show that within all human probability the crime must have been committed by the accused.
Udaipal Singh v. State of U. P., AIR 1972 SC 54: 1972 Cr LJ 7: 1972 MLJ (Cri) 259: (1972) 1 SCJ 408: 1972 All Cr R 220: (1972) 1 MLJ (SC) 84.
Motive-Not ulterior. In appreciating the evidence against the accused the prime duty of the Court is firstly to ensure that the evidence to legally ad- missible, that the witnesses who speak to it are credible and have no interest in implicating him or have ulterior motive.
H. P. Administration v. Om Prakash, AIR 1972 SC 975: 1972 SCD 128: (1972) 1 SCJ 891: 1972 Cri LJ 806.
Motive-Dispute regarding land. The refusal of the deceased to comply with the request persistently made and the possibilities of the land going out of the reach of the accused could not also be regarded as an inadequate motive. Numerous crimes have been perpetrated for reasons less adequate than the possible loss of land.
S. G. Mohite v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 55: 1973 Cri LJ 159 (1973) 2 SCJ 303.
Motive cannot weigh the testimony of eye witnesses. Evidence as to motive would, no doubt, go a long way in cases wholly dependent on circum- stantial evidence. Such evidence would form one of the links in the chain of circumstatial evidence in such a case. But that would not be so in cases where there are eye witnesses of credibility, though even in such cases if a motive is properly proved, such proof will strengthen the prosecution case and fortify the court in its ultimate conclusion. But that does not mean that if a motive is not established, the evidence of eye witness is rendered untrust- worthy.
S. G. Mohite v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 55: 1973 Cri LJ 159: 1973 SCC (Cri) 214: 1973 Mad LJ (Cri) 462: (1973) 2 SCJ 303: (1973) 3 SCC 219.
Motive for murder. An argument has also been advanced to the effect that there could be no motive for the murder as there was no emnity with the deceased. The Supreme Court observed-We find however that both the eye- witnesses have stated that while leaving the dead body the assailants shouted that they had killed the "police agent" and proclaimed "red salute" to Naxalbari. It therefore appears that the motive for the murder of Chinta- moni Ghosh was that he was suspected to be a police agent.
Nitya Sen v. State of W. B., AIR 1978 SC 383: 1978 Cri I.R (SC) 39: 1978 SC Cri R 63: 1975 UJ (SC) 123: (1978) SCC (Cri) 191.
Motive-Importance of Where case based on circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court observed that in cases where the case of the prosecution rests purely on circumstantial evidence, motive undoubtedly plays an important part in order to tilt that scale against the accused. Is is also well-settled that the accushd can be convicted on circumstantial evidence only if every other reason- able hypothesis of gilt is completely excluded and the circumstances are wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the accused.
State (Delhi Admn.) v. Gulzari Lal, AIR 1979 SC 1382.
Motive-Failure to establish-Effect of. The Supreme Court observed that the failure of the prosecution to establish the motive for the crime does not mean that the entire prosecution case has to be thrown over-board. It only casts a duty on the Court to scrutinize the other evidence, particularly the eye witnesses, with great case. Nachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 118: 1975 Cri LJ 186: (1975) 3 SCC 266: 1974 SCC (Cri) 874.
Motive-Importance-Where direct evidence. In case there is direct evi- dence, motive looses its importance.
Ghanshyam v. State, 1981 All Cri R 394, DB.
Molu v. State of Haryana, AIR 1976 SC 2499: (1976) Cri LJ 1895: 1976 Cri LR (SC) 387: 1976 (4) SCC 362: 1976 SCC (Cri) 636: 1976 Cri AR (SC) 370.
Motive-Absence of in criminal trial. The Supreme Court observed that even if the genesis or the motive of the occurrence was not proved the ocular testimony of the witnesses could not be discarded only on that account if otherwise it was reliable.
Bahal Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1976 SC 2032.
Motive-Its importance where there is direct evidence. It is now well- established that when there is direct evidence in regard to the offence com mitted, the evidence regarding motive will pale into insignificance.
Philips v. State of Karnataka, 1980 Cri LJ 171 (Kant, DB): ILR (1979) 2 Kant 2170: 1980 Mad LJ (Cri) 129. Pritam Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1970 SCC (Cri) 140,
