Beyond Intention - Examining The Relevancy & Evidentiary Value Of Motive In Criminal Adjudication
Author: LawSphereX
Category: Criminal Law
Published:
Updated:
BEYOND INTENTION: EXAMINING THE RELEVANCY &
EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF MOTIVE IN CRIMINAL
ADJUDICATION
K. Bhanu Prakash, The West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata
ABSTRACT
The paper analyses and tries to understand the relevancy of motive in general and also whether it attracts importance as a piece of evidence for convicting the accused guilty of a certain crime. The project is divided into five parts. In the first part, the author, with the help of relevant background, introduces the topic of motive and its relevance. In the second part, the author deals with the scope of the topic to understand the motive and why it is essential to understand its relevance or irrelevance. Furthermore, in the third part, the author explains underlying themes and subthemes related to the relevance of motive with the help of illustrations and case references. It explores the aspects of motive and closely related terms to focus on the relevant aspects of motive rather than the motive studied in isolation.
Further, it delves into the nature of motive, its identification, proof, and adequacy, which are dealt with in four chapters. In the fourth part, in furtherance of part III, the author specifies the research issues and questions in furtherance of understanding the exploratory nature of motive and its scope while understanding a few research questions delving into the aspects of the presumption of motive, the absence of motive, and the importance of motive with the help of relevant case laws to support the arguments. The paper discusses why motive has become irrelevant in proving criminal liability in general. However, there are exceptions as it depends on the nature of the evidence. The research questions are divided into three chapters dealing with each research question. Finally, in the fifth part, the author attempts to provide his insights and concludes the research paper.
I. An Introduction to Motive
The law of evidence entails many concepts and issues associated with it to understand its applicability and importance through the history of its jurisprudence. Many aspects of the evidence, whether relevant or not to understand a case, carry some amount of value and force to it from various perspectives when looked through the evidentiary lens. The motive in one case may be important, while in the other, it may not be the case. Motive comes into the picture when we talk about crimes in any given scenario, but not always. When understanding a crime, motive plays various roles and is relevant in almost all criminal evidence. It carries particular importance and relevance depending on the nature of the case and circumstances.
Acts can be classified into (1) internal and (2) external acts, and it is also known that section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act classifies facts into physical, which are external acts, and psychological facts, which are internal acts. 1 While understanding motive, it is imperative to understand where this concept falls in. It should also be understood that motive is a personal mental attitude only known to a person. It cannot be known generally unless manifested physically in the perceivable world. Motive is an exertion of human will and, hence, an internal act. 2 Motive how so ever despicable it might be is per se not punishable in the court of law unless it is translated into a perceivable external act. 3 One of the main issues is to analyze its implications in deciding the guilt of the accused. The limited concept of motive is dealt with in section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
The first part deals with motive and preparation, and conduct is dealt with in the second part of the section, which will not be discussed in detail. However, motive, which is only known to the accused, can often be proved by the conduct of the accused. It is not easy to prove motive by direct evidence. Hence, it is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence, i. e. , the person's conduct. 4 Conduct + Offence => only factor to determine guilt The first part of the section provides:
1 DR. V. NAGESWARA RAO, THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, A CRITICAL COMMENTARY COVERING
EMERGING ISSUES AND INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS 62 (1st ed, 2012).
2 Id.
3 Id.
4 M. MONIR, SHORT EDITION, LAW OF EVIDENCE, COMMENTARY ON THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT
(I OF 1872), AS AMENDED BY THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000 (ACT 21 OF 2000), 80
(H.S Ursekar, 6th ed., 2002).
[S.8]. Any fact is relevant, which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant.5 One of the illustrations of the section provides: A is tried for the murder of B. The facts that A murdered C, that B knew that A had murdered C and that B had tried to extort money from A by threatening to make his knowledge public, are relevant.6 The illustration above barely explains the chain of events which are relevant facts. A murdering B because B threatened A is also a relevant fact. Nevertheless, does this explain whether A had
motive? Or What is the role of intention here? Where do B’s motives end? How does establishing the motive affect the case? should focus shift towards intention or motive? If so, what is the difference? All these primarily depend on the nature of the facts and the value it attracts to the case. The vital principle is that there are four stages in the commission of crime7:
1. Motive – This can be illustrated by the intention to commit a crime => Prompting force
2. Preparation
Conduct + Backed by motive
3. Attempt
4. Actual commission of the crime
The motive with which the person commits a certain crime or the preparation he/she makes towards the commission of the act is a relevant fact. Therefore Section 8 makes us explore the importance of motive, preparation where there is no direct evidence, and the facts are proven based on circumstantial, which will also affect the nature of motive. Action without motive is something like an effect without a cause. So, motive is present in every case, and no one can commit a crime without motive. Therefore, the motive is a state of mind or a personal mental attitude of an accused. Motive is the moving power that impels action for a definite result8. Simply put, it is a strong reason and stimulating factor for a person to commit a crime or do an act. Two sorts of circumstantial pieces of evidence generally prove it:9
5 The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, §8.
6 Id.
7 K.D GAUR, TEXTBOOK ON THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT 80 (2nd ed, 2020).
8 Id.
9 BATUK LAL, THE LAW OF EVIDENCE 115, (22nd ed, 2018).
1. Conduct of the person
2. The events that could excite an emotion (motive)
Basically, the motive is a relevant fact. However, it is affected by the nature of cases relating to direct and circumstantial evidence. In direct evidence, the person who personally perceived or witnessed a particular crime or motive becomes foreign, meaningless, and loses its plus value (probative force) when the prosecution case is fully established based on ocular evidence. In cases relating to circumstantial evidence, motive assumes importance because, in the absence of any ocular evidence or robust and reliable evidence, the motive to commit certain acts needs to be understood. Motive + Circumstantial evidence => Conclusion of guilt Motive = In isolation, not reasonable to conviction Circumstantial evidence = the whole of the pieces of evidence/ chain of events Moreover, the absence of motive will not entitle the accused to an acquittal10 (Vivek Kaira v State of Rajasthan, 2014).
Prof. Wigmore observes, ‘it is always possible that this necessary emotion (motive) may be undiscoverable and thus the failure to discover it, does not signify its non-existence. 11 In fact, the absence of motive is a factor that weighs in favor of the accused, and it cannot just be a ground to reject the prosecution case. Again, this affects the case based on direct or circumstantial evidence and its nature. In Gurucharan Singh v. the State of Punjab, it was observed that evidence as to the motive is relevant merely to lend assurance to the evidence as to the commission of the crime and fortify it. 12 Hence, the motive is a relevant factor and an essential consideration while determining the guilt of an accused. Nevertheless, it is not conclusive and insufficient to convict the accused solely based on the motive being relevant.
The motive becomes immaterial if the chain of other circumstances, provided they are relevant both logically and legally, is proved and points towards the guilt of the accused.
10 GAUR, supra note 7.
11 MONIR, supra note 4, 81.
12 Id.
II. Scope of motive & its relevance
It is important to delve into the definitions of motive, understand its perspectives from a layman’s point of view, and differentiate between the terms closely related to motive, such as intention and knowledge. The Indian Evidence Act 1872 does not explicitly talk about intention and its role during the trial and conviction of the accused. Motive is a necessary component of most of the crimes under the Indian Penal Code and other criminal statutes. However, it is relevant only in very limited cases concerning civil wrongs and torts. 13 Motive becomes important when a case rests solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence, often through the conduct of the person. It is not conclusive to hold a person having a strong motive to be a criminal. Furthermore, in cases where the prosecution has direct evidence, motive becomes immaterial.
In that event, the fate of the case depends upon the assessment of the evidence of the eyewitness. 14 However, understanding the motive in every case may not be important but does not render it utterly insignificant to the cases. The project sheds light on other jurisdictions in an understanding of terms like intention. It explores how far motive and intention are the same. Ultimately, the relevancy of motive is contested, and importance is placed on the intention. III. Outlining the Themes & Sub-themes
A. Nature of the Motive
What is legally relevant will be logically relevant, but not all logically relevant facts need to be necessarily legally relevant. Motive is something that renders the fact to be proved more probable than it would be without that evidence. This is logically relevant but not necessarily legally relevant. The prosecution does not have to prove motive mandatorily. However, if the prosecution suggests a motive, it will strengthen the case nonetheless. Logically relevant facts + Plus Value (Adding Probative value or force) => Sufficiently relevant or legally relevant
13 RAO, supra note 1, 63.
14 Id.
Phipson says, the legal admissibility of facts is, for the most part, determined by their logical relevancy to the issue or the connection between the two, which renders the latter probable in the ordinary course of events from the existence of the former.15 He also points out that logically relevant facts are mostly rejected for reasons of policy or any other occasion, and logically irrelevant facts are admitted in evidence because of some rule of law that authorizes their admission.16 On the other hand, legal relevancy is essential to admissible evidence. It requires a higher standard of evidentiary value or force.17 Hence, there seems to be a conflict between logical relevancy and its admissibility, and this means that what is logically relevant must also be legally relevant to ensure its admissibility. Illustration: 1
MOTIVE
Exculpatory Partly or Fully Inculpatory Motive + Criminal act Motive + Illegal act Not responsible In cases of general defences Identification of motive
Illustration 1 explanation: Motive can be inculpatory and exculpatory. Generally, it becomes inculpatory, where a person is held responsible for any illegal act committed with a motive, good or bad. When motive plays a fully inculpatory role, it may be an explicit element of an offense. 18 In California, it is unlawful to possess burglary tools with the intention to break into any dwelling or vehicle. In New Jersey, it is unlawful to possess a weapon “with a purpose to use it unlawfully against the person or property of another. ”19 Motive serves a fully inculpatory role in these “unlawful purpose” statutes because the possession of burglary tools, weapons, etc. , may be otherwise lawful.
20 Motive is also exculpatory in nature, and it is so because the person accused of committing a criminal act is not held responsible or not subjected to criminal liability, especially in cases that fall under general defenses. The accused, in this case, must be entitled to justification defenses like if the person is acting under self-defense to protect himself/herself from more significant harm, and the question of proportionality and its nature altogether is a different question, majorly depending on the facts and circumstances. When motive plays a fully inculpatory or exculpatory role, its presence is reflected in a defendant’s criminal liability, rendering her either guilty or not guilty. 21 When motive plays a partially inculpatory or exculpatory role, it determines the offense for which she is guilty. 22 B. Intention and motive
Often there is confusion between motive and intention. They certainly overlap when we generally try to understand a case, but that is not always the case. Motive is more inclined towards emotions like love, fear or anger, etc. and intention is more about a desire to act, which is more or less backed up by these emotions. A motive is something that prompts a person to form an opinion or intention to do certain illegal acts or even a legal act through illegal means with a view to achieving that intention.23 An intention is an act of the will, and the reason behind this will is motive. A person’s intention may be to satisfy his/her motives in the physical 18 Carissa Byrne Hessick, Motives role in criminal punishment, Southern California Law Review, 9 (August, 2006)
19 Id.
20 Id.
21 Id., 14.
22 Id.
23 SUKUMAR RAY, OUTLINES OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT ALONG WITH LAW OF EVIDENCE
DURING ANCIENT PERIOD; MODERN INVESTIGATIVE TOOL AND EVIDENTIARY VALUE
(INCLUDING DNA TEST/CYBER FORENSIC); PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT,
1872. 52 (2011)
world. For example, A stealing food from B forms the intention, which is to steal the food, and A providing that food to his hungry children forms the motive, which is the reason to steal the
food. Thus, we can understand here that stealing food from B forms the immediate intention, manifesting the act while feeding the food to the starving children forms an ulterior motive. To understand it simply, if ‘A’ tries to shoot a bear that is wreaking havoc in his village, ‘A’ misses the aim and kills Z. ‘A’ intended to kill the bear by shooting, which explains A’s intention. However, his intention was not to kill Z. A’s getting rid of the bear to prevent the danger and protect his family might have been the motive. Facts that show or explain: Ø Intention - Killing the bear (by shooting) => nature of the act Ø Motive – Prevent harm and protect family => prompting force Hence, it should be clear that intention mainly manifests in the nature, design, and purpose of committing an act, while motive is the impelling push manifesting the actual commission of the act.
On the other hand, knowledge signifies a state of mental realization in which the mind is a passive recipient of specific ideas and impressions arising in it or passing before it. 24 The word refers to the bare state of conscious awareness of certain facts in which the human mind might remain inactive. 25 Whereas intention connotes a conscious state of mind in which mental faculties are roused into activity directed towards a particular act. 26
24 Id., 54.
25 Id., 54.
26 Id., 54.
Knowledge Can be limited to inquiry Immediate object Intention Ulterior object Motive Illustration: 2 C. Proof of motive
The motive in itself is not an incriminating circumstance and cannot be used in place of proof.27 A motive, howsoever laudable it might be, cannot be taken as a justification for the commission
of a crime or even as a mitigation factor unless the law recognizes it as such. 28 Thus, in criminal law, the maxim actus non facit nisi mens sit rea ---- no act is an offense without a guilty mind. 29 For example, suppose A says he will kill B just as a matter of fun. In that case, it does not amount to the offense of murder under section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. It requires to prove mens rea (guilty mind) of committing a crime or causing physical injury or loss to another person. In Natha Singh v. Emperor, the Supreme Court observed30: Proof of motive or inducement for the commission of the offense is not necessary when there is clear evidence that a person has committed an offense. When evidence connecting the accused with the commission of the crime is weak, motive can hardly make for the weakness of the prosecution case.
Suppose the prosecution case is convincing beyond a reasonable doubt. In that case, the prosecution does not need to prove motive or that motive was adequate. 27 Ayush Jain, Motive, Preparation & Conduct, May 8, 2020, available at Motive, Preparation & Conduct - Indian Legal Solution (Last visited on September 20, 2022).
28 RAO, supra note 1, 62.
29 Id.
30 Id., 63.
Illustration: 3 Motive cannot take place of Proof of guilty act => Clear Motive becomes proof Proof of guilty act => not clear Supports the Evidence to establish Evidence establishing the Strong
C
Other corroborativ e evidence Needs thorough examination by the In proving motive, hearsay evidence cannot be allowed.31 The prosecution is entitled to call evidence however improbable it may be and nonetheless so because such evidence may suggest that the accused has committed some other offense also.32 If such evidence is given to show that he/she is the person likely to have committed the offense charged, the evidence would not be relevant but would be relevant to establish the motive for the offense.33 The motive to commit an offense is not essential, but if it is alleged, it must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt.34 D. Adequacy of motive
The degree of relevance or its adequacy in the court of law can be understood in two ways, theoretical and general human experience. Generally, in most cases, adequacy is of little importance. From the general human experience, even heinous crimes are committed from the very slightest of motives. For example, P has murdered person Q, for Q has made fun of P. absence of motive or inadequacy of motive is of comparative unimportance where there exists
31 P.K. MAJUMDAR & MOHD. SHABBIR, LAW OF EVIDENCE IN INDIA, 136, 137 (4th ed., 1999).
32 Id.
33 Id.
34 Id.
absolutely cogent evidence that a crime has been committed by a particular person.35 A. Research issues & questions
Issue 1: Why is motive irrelevant in determining a person's criminal liability? In the case of Alagupandi v. the State of Tamil Nadu, it was observed that the existence of a motive for committing a crime is not an absolute requirement of law. 36 However, it is always a relevant factor that the courts will consider as it assists the courts in analyzing the prosecution evidence and determining the guilt of the accused. 37 However, the main question is, will this amount to convicting the accused, direct or circumstantial evidence? Is it relevant or irrelevant in determining the liability of the accused? Furthermore, motives can be important to the administration of criminal justice through prosecutors’ discretion, sentencing decisions, and parole board rulings. 38 Nonetheless, it is argued that motives ought not to be given weight in determining a defendant’s liability.
39 In Sheo Shankar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand, the Supreme court observed that the prosecution relies upon circumstantial evidence on the one hand and those where it relies upon the testimony of eye-witnesses on the other. 40 In the former category of cases, proof of motive is given the importance it deserves, for proof of a motive itself constitutes a link in the chain of circumstances upon which the prosecution may rely. 41 Even if the prosecution succeeds in establishing a strong motive for the commission of the offense, but the evidence of the eyewitnesses is found unreliable or unworthy of credit, the existence of a motive does not by itself provide a safe basis for convicting the accused. 42 That does not mean that proof of motive, even in a case that rests on an eye-witness account, does not lend strength to the prosecution
35 BATUK LAL, LAW OF EVIDENCE (IN INDIA, PAKISTAN, BANGLADESH, SRI LANKA AND
MALAYSIA), 198, 199 (5th ed., 2005).
36 Alagupandi v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2012 SC 2405.
37 Id.
38 Shachar Eldar & Elkana Laist, The Irrelevance of Motive and The Rule of Law, New Criminal Law Review, An International and Interdisciplinary Journal, Vol. 20, No. 3, 434 (2017)
39 Id.
40 Sheo Shankar Singh v. State of Jharkhand & Anr., AIR 2011 SC 1403.
41 Id.
42 Id.
case or fortify the court in its ultimate conclusion. 43 Proof of motive in such a situation certainly helps the prosecution and supports the eye-witnesses. 44 In the case, Natha Singh v. Emperor, the Bombay High Court observed that the suggested motive is no doubt a singular one. Still, however improbable an alleged motive may be, the prosecution is entitled to call evidence supporting it. Nonetheless, such evidence may suggest that the accused has committed some crime other than that with which he is charged. 45 The mere existence of motive by itself is not an incriminating circumstance, and it cannot give rise to an inference of guilt, nor can it form the basis for conviction unless either direct or circumstantial evidence is available to prove the guilt of the accused. 46 Thus, motive, however adequate it may be, cannot by itself sustain a criminal charge.
47 It becomes much more crucial to understand that even though the proof of motive is not important, it is a material consideration that the court decides depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. Issue 2: Relevancy of the motive in cases solely based on circumstantial evidence. How motive becomes essential here? Motive assumes importance in cases that rely solely on circumstantial evidence as there might not be any scope for introducing direct evidence. Mere evidence of motive can never supply the want of reliable evidence, direct or circumstantial, of the commission of the crime. 48 The motive may be immaterial, and intention is, by and large, material to prove mens rea. 49 It is crucial to understand this because how so ever heinous a motive could be, it will not be the sole basis for a conviction, for it only explains the emotion behind committing an act.
In contrast, the intention is reflected through the nature of the act and talks much about the crime. Therefore, in my opinion, assessing intention becomes essential in the cases of direct and circumstantial evidence. Because intention could only be manifested by motive and ultimately explains to us the nature of the crime itself. Motive is like adding fuel to the fire. In this case,
43 Id.
44 Id.
45 Natha Singh v. Emperor, AIR 1946 PC 187.
46 RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, infra note 60, 254.
47 Id., 255
48 MONIR, supra note 4, 81.
49 Id.
the fire might have existed for a long time. Here, the fuel is the motive, and the sparkling fire is the intention. Now, this fire could, howsoever, be used at the discretion of the person. It is pretty well-settled that motive does not have a major role to play in cases based on eyewitness accounts50 , or there is a lack of scientific evidence or other corroborative evidence that could connect to the offense committed by the accused. Thus, motive assumes importance in this scenario. Furthermore, if the prosecution provides or suggests a motive, the court may take the necessary discussion about its importance. However, this would only supply a link in the chain of circumstantial evidence, something that adds to the probative value of other incriminating evidence, which requires careful inspection by the court.
Thus, we have seen that motive is always relevant and brings no harm if the prosecution provides sufficient evidence. Its absence does not mean that the case should be rejected. The absence of motive, however, puts the court on its guard to scrutinize the circumstances more carefully to ensure that suspicion and conjecture do not take the place of legal proof. There is no absolute legal proposition of law that, in the absence of any motive, an accused cannot be convicted under
302 of the Indian Penal Code.51 Facts and circumstances should be looked upon. As is often
said, men may lie, but circumstances do not.52 Hence, in cases based on circumstantial evidence, motive assumes special recognition and does not matter if it is of varying degrees.
50 WOODROFFE & ALI, infra note 53, 801.
51 RAM JETHMALANI & D.S. CHOPRA, THE LAW OF EVIDENCE, COMMENTARY ON EVIDENCE
ACT, 1872, Vol.1 144 (1st ed., 2013).
52 Id., 145.
Research ques+on 1: Can a criminal act be presumed without mo+ve? Illustration: 4 Motive Survival – Primitive desire of ki d Stage - I Satisfaction of Hunger => Perceiving food in the outside Stealing food => Need an impulse to commit Stage - Means to achieve => Deliberation with the mind >> formulation of movements to steal the food Intention Commission of crime => Theft or any other illegal means Desire to act + End result > Ultimate aim Stage - It is understood that motive is an emotion, an impelling cause, and no one can see into the mind of another. Such impelling cause need not necessarily be proportionally grave to do grave crimes.53 Many murders have been committed without known or prominent motive.54 Though
53 JOHN WOODROFF & SYED AMIR ALI, LAW OF EVIDENCE, Vol.1 799 (B.M Prasad, Manish Mohan,
20th ed., 2017)
54 Id.
it is a sound presumption that every criminal act is done with a motive, it is unsound to suggest that no such criminal act can be presumed unless the motive is proved.55 No proof can be expected in all cases as to how the mind of the accused worked in a particular situation.56 Sometimes the motive established could be a weak one.57 That by itself is insufficient to lead to an inference adverse to the prosecution.58 The absence of motive, even if it is accepted, does not come to the aid of the accused.59 Illustration 4 explanation: the illustration explains the genesis of motive and its development in the mental and physical world through an example. Stage 1 entirely talks about the genesis of motive and desires, which form the crux of the matter in completing an act in this case. Stage
2 understands the means by which certain desires need to be achieved, pushed by the power of
motive, to satisfy hunger or feed his/her children. Intention plays an essential role in this stage where one’s mind is constantly in deliberation whether to act or not and how to act, how to achieve that desire to satisfy hunger. The liability part comes at a later stage if the person resorts to illegal means, as illustrated in stage 3. However, the important question can a criminal act be presumed even without proving motive? The answer is yes. If we look at this illustration, if the other chain of events like theft and other implications like trespass is proved, then the motive becomes insignificant. As long as the prosecution is able to prove the chain of events leading to the commission of the crime, proving motive does not become mandatory though the prosecution can suggest one.
Ocular evidence reliable + Medical evidence Corroboration >> Conviction can be done without proving motive Research question 2: When the relevancy of motive loses its importance, and why? The motive part loses its importance and pales into the background if the prosecution is able to provide clear and convincing evidence or direct evidence leading to the commission of the
55 Id.
56 Id.
57 Id.
58 Id.
59 Id.
crime. When the evidence of eye-witness is found to be truthful, motive assumes a secondary role. 60 However, motive acquires some importance if the eye-witness is doubted. The motive lacks its significance even in a case of circumstantial evidence if all the other proven circumstances undoubtedly point towards the guilt of the accused. 61 It is to be understood that motive is only known to the accused; even if there is a strong motive and the eye-witness is not convincing, then the accused may not be convicted. However, suppose motive cannot be established, and the eye-witness seems to be clear and robust. In that case, the motive’s absence does not matter when convicting the accused. Research question 3: Why the absence of motive weighs in favor of the accused? If the motive is disproved or even reasonably doubtful, it greatly benefits the prisoner.
62 If the prosecution fails to establish pieces of evidence showing the guilt of the accused and also fails to establish the motive, which could more or less support the prosecution's case if there were direct evidence, the accused can be acquitted. Illustration: 5 In the case, Suresh Chandra Bahri v. the State of Bihar (1995), it was observed that if a motive is proved that would supply a link in the chain of circumstantial evidence, but the absence thereof cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution case. 63 However, at the same time, as
60 RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, THE LAW OF EVIDENCE, 246 (N. Vijayaraghavan & Sharath Chandran, 26th
ed., 2022).
61 Id., 247.
62 LAL, supra note 35, 199.
63 Shivaji Chintappa Patil v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1249 ¶ 30
observed by this Court in Babu v. State of Kerala (2010), the absence of motive in a case depending on circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs in favor of the accused. 64 It is more than the settled principle of law that if two views are possible, the benefit shall always go to the accused. 65 In the case Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984), it was observed that, where on the evidence two possibilities are available or open, one which goes in favor of the prosecution and the other which benefits an accused, the accused is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of the doubt. 66 The court, in this case, referring to Kali Ram v.
State of Himachal Pradesh (1973), made the following observations “Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases, is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favorable to the accused should be adopted. 67 This principle has special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence. 68
IV. Conclusion
The role of motive in proving liability, criminal or civil, requires a deeper understanding of the nature of the case. Even though the motive is relevant in the general understanding of any particular case, in the legal sense, the scenario changes depending on the case. It is a relevant factor in all criminal cases, whether based on eye-witness testimony or circumstantial evidence. Mere conviction on the basis of motive is flawed as we cannot ignore other circumstances affecting any particular case. Even though its importance is negligible, the court has to take great care in evaluating all the facts which are so relevant in determining the conclusion. Where the proof clearly points to the guilt of the accused, in such cases, even though motive, for instance, may not be proved, an accused may be convicted and vice versa in proving the innocence.
The statement that motive is never an essential element of the crime is partly due to the fact that motive as an evidential fact is confused with motive as an operative fact or fact in an
64 Id.
65 Id., ¶ 32
66 Id.
67 Id.
68 Id.
issue. 69 Motive as evidence of another element of the crime is confused with motive, which is an essential element of the crime. 70 As an evidential fact, the motive is always relevant but never essential and conclusive. When a motive of the accused for the commission of a crime is discovered, it is easier to believe that he committed it than when no motive is apparent. 71 For this reason, it is always relevant to prove the existence of a motive. 72 There may be many proofs independent of motive to prove the guilt of the accused, however, proving or understanding the motive of an accused will help the case. 73 Thus, it is not necessary for the state to prove the motive as an evidential fact. 74 Motive is both relevant and irrelevant. There is no particular or fixed objectivity when understanding its relevance. The factors are many, and its role is expanding.
Motive is relevant to understand a case, and it may add value or not. It is not the best evidence to prove. Even if it is proved, it adds some probative force or value to any case. Nevertheless, establishing motive and asserting criminal liability based on it does not value the best evidence rule. Other evidences cannot fall flat or be subservient to the evidence of motive. Motive, however, is irrelevant to criminal liability but is relevant as evidence, as a fact, in sentencing. Motive is also essential, especially to highlight intention and its nature. It is also important to appreciate the totality of the evidences and circumstances. Finally, in this instance, it is crucial to understand and lean towards the law that judges a person by what he/she does, not merely by the reason itself. 69 Walter Harrision Hitchler, Motive as An Essential Element of Crime, Vol. 35, Issue 3, DICK. L.
REV. 111 (1931).
70 Id., 111, 112.
71 Id., 112.
72 Id.
73 Id.
74 Id.
References Books
1. Dr. V. Nageswara Rao, The Indian Evidence Act, A Critical Commentary Covering
Emerging Issues and International Developments, (1st Ed, 2012).
2. M. Monir, Short Edition, Law of Evidence, Commentary on The Indian Evidence Act
(I Of 1872), As Amended by The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Act 21 Of 2000), (H.S Ursekar, 6th Ed., 2002).
3. K.D Gaur, Textbook on The Indian Evidence Act, (2nd Ed, 2020).
4. Batuk Lal, The Law of Evidence, (22nd Ed, 2018).
5. S.V. Joga Rao, Evidence: Cases and Materials, Lexis Nexis, 2003
6. Sukumar Ray, Outlines of Indian Evidence Act Along with Law of Evidence During
Ancient Period; Modern Investigative Tool And Evidentiary Value (Including DNA Test/Cyber Forensic); Proposed Amendment of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, (2011)
7. P.K. Majumdar & Mohd. Shabbir, Law of Evidence in India, (4th Ed., 1999).
8. Batuk Lal, Law of Evidence (In India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, And Malaysia),
(5th Ed., 2005).
9. Ram Jethmalani & D.S. Chopra, The Law of Evidence, Commentary on Evidence Act,
1872, Vol.1, (1st Ed., 2013).
10. John Woodroff & Syed Amir Ali, Law of Evidence, Vol.1, (B.M Prasad, Manish Mohan,
20th Ed., 2017)
11. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Law of Evidence, (N. Vijayaraghavan & Sharath Chandran,
26th Ed., 2022). Journal Articles
1. Carissa Byrne Hessick, Motives role in criminal punishment, Southern California Law
Review, 9 (August, 2006)
2. Shachar Eldar & Elkana Laist, The Irrelevance of Motive and The Rule of Law, New
Criminal Law Review, An International and Interdisciplinary Journal, Vol. 20, No. 3,
434 (2017)
3. Walter Harrision Hitchler, Motive as An Essential Element of Crime, Vol. 35, Issue 3,
DICK. L. REV. 111 (1931).
Online Materials
1. Ayush Jain, Motive, Preparation & Conduct, May 8, 2020, available at Motive,
Preparation & Conduct - Indian Legal Solution (Last visited on September 20, 2022). Cases
1. Alagupandi v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2012 SC 2405
2. Sheo Shankar Singh v. State of Jharkhand & Anr., AIR 2011 SC 1403
3. Natha Singh v. Emperor, AIR 1946 PC 187
4. Shivaji Chintappa Patil v. the State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1249
Statues
1. Indian Evidence Act, 1872
2. Indian Penal Code, 1860