Motive

If prosecution evidence regarding ocular account, recovery of weapons of offence and medical evidence is disbelieved, accused cannot be convicted and sentenced merely on the basis of motive alleged against them

Motive is a double edged weapon, which can be a reason for commission of offence and at the same time it may be a reason of false involvement of an accused in a case.

Absence of motive will hardly be a circumstance for the acquittal of an accused, provided the prosecution otherwise succeeds in establishing its charge and in proving the guilt of the accused.

Motive is a double-edged weapon which cuts both sides in like manner, as such, false implication of accused by complainant because of the motive so set up could not be ruled out.

Motive was only a supporting piece of evidence and if the ocular account is found to be unreliable then motive alone cannot be made the basis of conviction.

Lack of motive, its weakness or even its non-proving is never fatal to prosecution case qua awarding conviction if a case otherwise stands proved through direct evidence with regard to the occurrence.

Even if same is proved, it above could not be made basis for conviction of an accused on capital charge particularly where evidence of ocular account is totally disbelieved inasmuch as in such eventuality worth of evidence of motive would stand reduced to nil.

Motive could be used by the accused to take revenge and at the same time could be a tool used by the complainant for false charge as well.

There are always different motives that operate in the mind of a person in making a false accusation.

Motive could be a reason to commit an offence, and the same can also be a reason for false implication of an accused.

If the ocular testimony is found to be unreliable, motive by itself cannot be made the sole basis for recording a conviction.

Prosecution though is not obliged to prove the motive in each and every case, however, once the motive is set up then it must be established

In case of failure to prove the motive, the prosecution must suffer its consequences and not the defence.

In doing so, Court has to keep in mind the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities to find out whether such discrepancies shake the truthfulness of the witness

Some discrepancies not touching core of the case are not enough to reject evidence as a whole

It is normal human conduct that while narrating a particular incident there may occur minor discrepancies

Parrot-like statements are always discredited by Courts

In order to ascertain as to whether discrepancy pointed out was minor or not or the same amounted to contradiction, regard is required to be made to circumstances of the case

There are always normal discrepancies

Material discrepancies are those which are not normal and not expected of a normal person

Both the Courts below while appreciating evidence on record in its true perspective arrived at the right conclusion by holding accused guilty of committing murder of his father and brother

Supreme Court converted death sentence of accused into imprisonment for life on two counts as prosecution had failed to prove motive

Appeal was dismissed.

Motive holds even greater value in cases of direct evidence, and hits the last hammer in support of the prosecution at its conclusion.

In criminal cases the prosecution need not set up a motive but if it elects to do so and then fails to establish it the prosecution suffers its consequences

Motive's absence, or failure to establish it is also consequential in a murder case in which the guilt of the offender is established but the asserted motive is not

In such cases the accused invariably is not given capital punishment, but instead imprisonment for life.

Absence or weakness of motive is not a ground for the acquittal of an accused, rather the same can be taken into consideration to determine as to what sentence should be awarded.

Motive is not the requirement of law but it is also equally a settled rule that once a motive is set up by the complainant, then he is bound to prove the same through evidence

In case of failure to do so, the prosecution must suffer the consequence and not the defence.

Absence or weakness of motive by itself would not be sufficient for acquitting an accused, rather the same could be taken into consideration for determining the quantum of sentence to be awarded.

Weakness or absence of motive is not the sole determining factor to ascertain the veracity of the prosecution case, but it is equally true that when the prosecution case rests on the alleged motive, then under such circumstances, the prosecution cannot be absolved of its liability to prove the same

In case, the prosecution cannot prove the alleged motive, then it is the prosecution that has to suffer.

When motive is the sole purpose for committing the offence then failure on the part of the prosecution to prove the same would react against the prosecution.

Absence or weakness of motive would hardly be a ground for dislodging the prosecution case provided it succeeds in bringing home guilt against the accused charged.

Motive could be considered as a justification for the commission of crime as well as reason for false implication in a crime, thus could not be conclusively used for any purpose, moreso when the narrators of the ocular account were disbelieved.

When substantive evidence is discarded, then motive loses its significance and becomes immaterial for conviction.

If prosecution sets up a motive but fails to prove it, then, it is the prosecution who has to suffer and not the accused.

Motive is double edged weapon because if it could be a reason for the commission of a crime then at the same time it (motive) could be a reason for false involvement of an accused.

Motive is only supportive piece of evidence and if the ocular account is found to be unreliable then motive alone cannot be made basis of conviction.

Motive is a double-edged weapon, which can cut either way; if it is the reason for the accused to murder the deceased, it is equally a ground for the complainant to falsely implicate them in the case.

Motive is only a corroborative piece of evidence and if the ocular account is found to be unreliable then motive alone cannot be made basis of conviction.

There are always different motives that operate in the mind of a person in making false accusations.

Existence of a motive on the part of the accused may be a reason for committing the crime, yet the Court must be cognizant that this may, lead to the false implication of the accused.

Motive is a double-edged weapon for the occurrence and false implication.

Based on motive of accused to commit the crime, cannot by itself lead to a judgment of conviction.

Motive is a double-edged weapon and could cut both sides equally and also could be equal reason for false implication of the accused

When ocular account has been discarded then motive is of no help to the case of prosecution

Motive is neither substantive nor direct or corroborative piece of evidence rather only circumstance leading to the offence.

In the absence of motive, the death penalty cannot be withheld solely because the prosecution failed to allege or establish a motive.

When there were open hostilities between two groups, the motive factor may propel one side to commit a crime, and the same factor may possibly induce the other group to implicate their rivals

Even otherwise, motive was a double-edged weapon, which could be used either way and by either side i.e. for real or false involvement

As such merely because of motive, the appellants could not be held responsible for the alleged offence

Appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment passed by the High Court and that of the Trial Court were set aside, and consequently, both the appellants, were acquitted of the charge.

Motive is a double-edged weapon, which can be used either way and by either side i.e. for real or false involvement in a case.

If the prosecution sets up a motive but fails to prove it, then it is the prosecution which has to suffer, and not the accused.

If the prosecution sets up a motive but fails to prove it, then it is the prosecution who has to suffer and not the accused.

Motive always remains secret and concealed until exposed through spoken words or actions.

Prosecution is not bound to setup motive in each and every case but once it is alleged and not proved, then the ocular account is required to be scrutinized with due care and caution.

Motive is not the requirement of law and conviction can be recorded even in the absence of motive.

If prosecution sets up a motive but fails to prove it, then, it is the prosecution who has to suffer and not the accused.

Where motive is set up but cannot be established by the prosecution, it leaves the entire episode of the tragedy in doubt.

If it can be canvassed to be driving force for the accused to assassinate his opponent, it can equally be considered the reason for the complainant to falsely implicate his adversary.

Motive is only a supporting piece of evidence and if the ocular account is found to be unreliable then motive alone cannot be made the basis of conviction.

If motive part of the prosecution case is not proved and hence excluded from consideration, the accused can still be convicted in presence of sufficient evidence in the form of ocular account duly supported by the medical evidence beyond any shadow of doubt.

Though the prosecution is not required to prove motive in every case, yet the same, if set up, should be proved through independent source of evidence other than the words of mouth, and in case of failure to do so, the prosecution should face the consequences and not the defence.

Such delay in ordinary course could have been ignored but when both prosecution witnesses claimed their presence at place of occurrence at the relevant time, then such delay could not be overlooked for the reason that distance between place of occurrence and police station was 2 kilometers and hospital was at a distance of 1 1/4 kilometers from the police station

Father of accused stood acquitted in a murder case of grandson of an employee of deceased, way back in the year 2005 who had earned acquittal likewise accused in the year 2010 had earned acquittal in the case of causing injuries to paternal grandson of deceased

Accused could not have carried the venom after about ten years of his acquittal or fifteen years after acquittal of his father

Prosecution failed to prove charge against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt

High Court extended benefit of doubt to accused, set aside conviction and sentence awarded to him by Trial Court and acquitted him of the charge

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

When eye-witness account is disbelieved, the rest of evidence like motive, medical or recovery are only of corroborative nature and cannot be made basis to record or sustain conviction.

Once motive is setup by the prosecution, but thereafter it fails to prove the same, then prosecution must suffer the consequences and not the defence.

If, on the one hand, it provides a reason for the accused to commit the occurrence in question, on the other hand, it equally provides the first informant with a reason to implicate his rival.