MOTIVE FOR A CRIME

MOTIVE FOR A CRIME:

In Shivaji Genu Mohite v. State of Maharashtra , the Supreme Court held that evidence as to motive would, no doubt, go a long way in cases wholly dependent on circumstantial evidence, that such evidence would form one of the links in the chain of circumstantial evidence in such a case, but, that would not be so in cases where there are eye-witnesses of credibility, though even in such case if motive is properly proved such proof would strengthen the prosecution case and fortify the court in its ultimate conclusion, but that does not mean that if motive is not established the evidence of an eye- witness is rendered untrustworthy.

In a catena of decisions, the Supreme Court held that even if the absence of motive as alleged is accepted, that is of no consequence and it pales into insignificance when direct evidence establishes the crime. Therefore, in case there is direct trustworthy evidence of witnesses as to the commission of an offence, the motive part loses its significance and if the genesis of the motive of the occurrence is not proved, the ocular testimony of the witnesses as to the occurrence could not be discarded only by the reason of the absence of motive, if otherwise the evidence is worthy of reliance (Hari Shanker v. State of U.P.; Bikau Pandey and others v. State of Bihar; and Abu Thakir and others v. State of Tamil Nadu).

In Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar the Supreme Court held that motive is something which prompts a person to form an opinion or intention to do certain illegal act or even a legal act but with illegal means with a view to achieve that intention, that in a case where there is clear proof of motive for the commission of the crime, it affords added support to the finding of the court that the accused was guilty of the offence charged with, but it has to be remembered that the absence of proof of motive does not render the evidence bearing on the guilt of the accused nonetheless becomes untrustworthy and unreliable because most often it is only the perpetrator of the crime alone who knows as to what circumstances prompted him to adopt a certain course of action leading to the commission of the crime. 

In Ujagar Singh v. State of Punjab the Supreme Court reiterated its view that motive is in the mind of the accused and can seldom be fathomed with any degree of accuracy.

In Subedar Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh the Supreme Court observed that the evidence regarding existence of motive which operates in the mind of an assassin is more often than not within the reach of others and that the motive may not even be known to the victim of the crime.

In the light of the settled legal position as above, if the prosecution has let in the evidence of eyewitnesses which is found trustworthy, the accused is liable to be convicted even if motive is not fully established.