THE LAWWAY WITH LAWYERS JOURNAL 

VOLUME:-22 ISSUE NO:- 22 ,May 15, 2025

 ISSN (ONLINE):- 2584-1106 

Website: www.the lawway with lawyers.com 

Email: thelawwaywithelawyers@gmail.com 

Authored By :- Ayushi Mishra 

THE RELEVANCY OF MOTIVE IN MURDER CASES: AN ANALYSIS

 

ABSTRACT

The edifice of criminal law is based on the celebrated maxim of “Actus Reus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea”  meaning thereby an act alone is not guilty unless done with criminal intention. Thus, guilty act and guilty mind both are important for establishing a crime like murder. If we talk about guilty mind , it encompasses terms as knowledge and intention. This is different from motive, which is merely an underlying reason for committing an act. Though motive is not an essential ingredient of crime and its absence is not fatal to the prosecution but its presence plays crucial role in establishing guilt of the accused. Our Hon’ble Courts have innumerable times has upheld this. This article is lucrative task of the author which provide a comprehensive guide on the analysis of motive in cases of murder by discussing the provisions and case laws.

Keywords: Circumstantial evidence, Crime, Direct evidence, Intention, Knowledge, Motive, Murder

INTRODUCTION

“Motive is a very important link in the circumstances which could prove the guilt of the accused, and it loses its importance only when there is direct evidence of eyewitnesses, which is convincing and conclusive as to the guilt of the accused.” 

–Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran

 Section 300 IPC, 1860 defines murder and make knowledge and intention an important factor in determining the murderer.  If we talk about motive then mental element of crime ordinarily involves no reference to motive. A bad motive cannot be reason for convicting a person. Similarly a good motive cannot be an excuse for acquitting him. A person may act from laudable motive, but if his intention causes wrongful loss, his crime is complete, irrespective of his motive.  

Murder is defined in section 300 of Indian Penal Code , 1860 hereinafter referred as IPC) or Section 101 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred as BNS) as follows:

Murder.—except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, 

(Firstly)- if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or

(Secondly) —If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or—

(Thirdly) —If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or—

(Fourthly) —If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid. 

MOTIVE

Definition: Austin defined motive as the ‘spring of action’. A motive is something that prompts a person to form an opinion or intention to do certain illegal acts or even legal act by illegal means with a view to achieve the intention. Every action is based on some motive i.e. what impels a person to act, such as ambition, fear envy, jealousy etc. it is psychological phenomena which impels a person to do a particular act. It is also called as ‘ulterior intent’. It is generally proved by 2 kinds of circumstantial evidence as:

• Conduct of the person
• By events about that person which could excite that emotion.

RELEVANCY OF MOTIVE IN MURDER CASES

There is hardly any act without motive. The absence or presence of the motive are relevant because they help in proving or disproving the fact in issue. Motive for murder lies locked in the heart of a person and hence it becomes difficult to know the same. Failure to bring on record any evidence regarding motive does not weakens the prosecution Case though its existence may strengthen the case. Relevancy of motive is given in section 8 of Indian evidence act, 1872 or section 6 of Bhartiya Shakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 which is as follows:

Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct.—Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact. 

Where positive evidence against the accused is clear, cogent and reliable the question of motive becomes insignificant. Here are certain latest case laws of the supreme court of India on the above topic that can explain the relevancy of motive in murder.

CASE LAWS

• Sukhpal Singh vs The State Of Punjabon 12 February, 2019

In this case an appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court against his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal code (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”) and sentencing to rigorous imprisonment for life.

Brief Facts: On 27/06/1993 upon discovery of an unidentified body near a canal and the case being registered and upon investigation being conducted the appellant along with another came to be charge sheeted and charged with the commission of offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. They were also charged with the offence under Section 201 of the IPC. The trial Court convicted the appellant while it acquitted the co-accused. As already noticed the High Court has affirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused- appellant.

Judgment: Apex court by dismissing the appeal observed that there is no motive established against the appellant for committing murder. It is undoubtedly true that the question of motive may assume significance in a prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence. It is true that if the prosecution establishes a motive for the accused to commit a crime it will undoubtedly strengthen the prosecution version based on circumstantial evidence, but that is far cry from saying that the absence of a motive for the commission of the crime by the accused will irrespective of other material available before the court by way of circumstantial evidence be fatal to the prosecution.

• Gargi vs State Of Haryana on 19 September, 2019 (Bench: A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari)

In this case appeal by special leave is filed against the common judgment and order dated 05.03.2008 whereby, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh has partly affirmed the judgment and order dated 09.06.1998 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala; and has upheld the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’) even while acquitting the co-accused persons of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC. 

Brief Facts: on 01.05.1997, having received information that a man had committed suicide in House No. 1297, Sector-15, Panchkula, ASI Amar Singh, accompanied by UGC Bidhi Chand and UGC Baldev Singh, reached the spot at about 11.30 p.m. only to find that in the room on the second floor of house, the deceased Tirloki Nath, husband of the appellant, was hanging by neck with his feet touching the floor. They also found that a pool of blood had collected near the dead body; and that the dead body was emitting bad odour. The appellant and her children were in the same house, but on the first floor.  At about 4.30 a.m. of 02.05.1997, i.e., nearly five hours after the police having arrived, the complainant Brij Bhushan Kaul, brother of the deceased, reached the spot with his wife, mother, sister’s husband and sister Smt. Radha Puri. The complainant made the statement that relationship of the deceased and the appellant was too strained due to which, they were residing in separate rooms in the same house; that the appellant had been ill-treating her husband, which included restricting his use of bathroom facilities in the same house; that the deceased had once expressed his fear that the appellant would leave the gas cylinder open with the intention to kill him; and that the deceased had also stated that ‘the character of his wife was bad’ and she was living ‘with bad women’. The Trial Court, accordingly, convicted the accused and her brother for the aforementioned offences of criminal conspiracy and murder and awarded sentence of rigorous life imprisonment together with fine of Rs. 2,000/- each with default stipulations. On appeal high court affirmed the conviction of appellant while acquitting her brother.

Judgment: Supreme Court observed that when the motive as imputed on the appellant does not appear existing, the benefit of doubt, obviously, goes to the appellant. Hence, appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and orders convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC are set aside; the appellant is extended the benefit of doubt and is, accordingly, acquitted.

• Purshottam Chopra vs State(Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi)on 7 January, 2020 (Bench: A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari)

In this case appeal is filed by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 23.05.2011 in Criminal Appeal No. 121 of 1999 and Criminal Appeal No. 139 of 1999 whereby High Court of Delhi has affirmed the judgment and order dated 30.01.1999 in Sessions Case No. 2 of 1998 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi; and has upheld the conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’)

Brief Facts: The appellants are accused of causing death of one Sher Singh by putting him on fire. There had been no eye-witness to the incident but the prosecution has relied upon two statements said to have been made by the deceased after the incident: one when he was admitted to the hospital with 100% burns and another when he was under treatment, respectively to a doctor and to a police officer. The Trial Court as also the High Court has accepted these statements as being his dying declarations wherein the appellants were named as the assailants. Therefore, the appellants stand convicted essentially on the basis of the dying declarations of the victim.

Judgement: Apex court by dismissing the appeal observed that the submission that prosecution has not been able to establish the motive for crime is also of no effect because, in the first place, in a death case, the motive remains essentially known to the deceased and to the offender; and a prosecution case cannot fail only for want of proof of motive.

• Basheera Begam vs Mohammed Ibrahim And Orson 31 January, 2020 (bench: (Hon’Ble Ms. Banerjee and Sanjiv Khanna)

Background of the case: In this case an appeal is filed in apex court against the judgment and order dated 21.11.2006 passed by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, allowing Criminal Appeal Nos. 834, 835, 836, 895, 926, 934 and setting aside the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, and acquitting all the eight accused persons (A1 to A8). While all the eight accused had been convicted under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code of criminal conspiracy, A1, A2 and A7 had also inter alia been convicted under Sections 302/34 of I.P.C for murder of the deceased Raja Mohammed, hereinafter referred to as the first Deceased (‘D1’), and his friend Raj Mohammed son of Ibrahim, the Accused No.4 (A4), and hereinafter referred to as the second Deceased (‘D2’).

Judgment: In this case Division bench of apex court through J. Indira Banerjee observed that when there is circumstantial evidence pointing to the guilt of the accused, it is necessary to prove a motive for the crime. However, motive need not be proved where there is direct evidence. In this case, there is no direct evidence of the crime. Hence, by dismissing the appeal court held that The High Court has rightly set aside the judgment and order of conviction of the Trial Court and acquitted the accused.

• Satish Kumar vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh on 2 March, 2020 (Bench: L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta)

In this case an Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2017 is preferred by Satish Kumar and Rajeev Kumar whereas Criminal Appeal No 1109 of 2016 is preferred by Lekh Ram, against common judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh dated 20th September, 2016 whereby the appeal filed by the complainant was allowed and the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial court on 30 th November, 2012 was set aside. The appellants were convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601 as well as under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

Brief facts: On 22nd December, 2009 at about 07:15 hours, an information was received by Ram Singh Inspector, on phone said to be by Satish Kumar son of Kanshi Ram, that Ratti Ram son of late Shri Roshan Lal, had died due to gun shot. On receiving such information, a Police team led by the Station House Officer of Police Station Ghumarwin proceeded towards the place of occurrence. Subsequently, on the statement of Neelam Sharma, daughter of deceased Ratti Ram, FIR No. 218 was registered on 22nd December, 2009 at about 14:05 hours. Neelam Sharma had stated that her father left home at about 8 am on 21st December, 2009 informing her that he would go to the house of Karma at Village Chujala and thereafter he would go to attend his duty at Village Harlog. But when he did not return till 6 pm, she called on his mobile number but mobile was switched off. She called in the morning to the Forest Guard to inquire about her father who told her that her father had not come there to join the duty. Thereafter, she made telephone call to accused Satish Kumar, whose house is in front of her house and sought phone number of Karma, resident of Village Chujala. The Police came to her house on 22nd December, 2009, when she came to know that her father had died due to gun shot by Satish Kumar and Rajeev Kumar and the body of his father is lying at Balh Churani forest. The motive of murder was said to be land dispute with Satish. The learned trial court acquitted all the accused. On appeal preferred by the complainant, the judgment of the trial court was set aside by High court.

Judgment: Apex court observed that in a case based upon circumstantial evidence motive is relevant but the prosecution has failed to prove any motive on the part of the accused. As per the statement of Neelam Sharma the motive was land dispute with Satish Kumar. If such was a motive, then there is no reason for her to contact Satish Kumar, who was said to be staying near her house, to find out whereabouts of her father. The said motive has no foundation to stand. Hence the order of high court was set aside and appellants were acquitted.

 

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

From the above case law we can say that motive plays an important role in the crime of murder and if prosecution establishes it and other material evidences are also available then it can lead to conviction. Existence of motive for committing murder is not an absolute requirement of law but it is always an elementary factor. However its absence may sometime give benefit of doubt to accused if other material evidences are not sufficient to hold the guilt of accused. Here in above cases if we look at the pattern of conviction on the basis of motive is quite fluctuating and there is no cardinal rule for convicting or acquitting the accused on sole basis of motive;  it must depend upon the moral character of the person accused in each case. There can be no motive which can induce an honest man to commit a crime. In the case of immoral man the slightest motives may induced him to murder a man. Thus it is seen that relevancy of motive to commit crime depends upon the character of a man. Sufficiency or insufficiency of motive is not always of such significance in a criminal trial. Insufficiency of motive cannot be fatal to the prosecution case in every trial. Similarly sufficiency of motive cannot be the sole basis of convection if the case is not proved by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Murder sometimes takes place with the motive and sometime without it. Section 300 of IPC clearly says that for commission of murder intention, knowledge and act in pursuance of such intention or knowledge is necessary. Motive is different from intention. Sometime a strong motive for murder does not laid the conviction of accused. Below we can see the relevancy of motive in murder where direct evidences and circumstantial evidence are available.

Where Direct evidence available:

Motive for crime is meaningless and  it is not important where direct evidence is available. Hence, where there is positive, clear, cogent and reliable ocular testimony, motive in criminal cases is not at all relevant. the mere fact of a strong motive to commit the crime cannot be of any assistant to the excuse the motive behind the crime and absence of motive both are relevant for assessing evidence.

In case of murder Supreme Court observed that if direct evidences are available then it is not necessary to prove the motive. Motive is known to deceased and offender and prosecution case wouldn’t fail only on failure to prove motive.  Though motive can give high value to prosecution case but in some cases its absence will lead to benefit of doubt to accused.

Where circumstantial evidence available:

Motive plays pivotal role in proving cases based on circumstantial evidence but its absence is not the deal breaker for the prosecution. As held in sukhpal singh that motive will definitely strengthen the prosecution case in case of circumstantial evidence but absence of it wouldn’t fatal to prosecution if other material available before court by way of circumstantial evidence. Delhi high court also on May, 2018 in its judgment held that proving the motive behind a murder is not binding factor to hold the accused guilty. Though basheera begum and satish kumar case says that if circumstantial evidence reflects someone guilty but prosecution fails to prove motive then accused would definitely get benefit of doubt. 

 

CONCLUSION

No doubt motive helps in deciding the case but often it is very difficult to prove the motive with which an act has been done and so it has been laid down that absence of motive or inadequacy of motive is of comparative unimportance where there exist absolutely cogent evidence that a murder has been committed by a particular person but if murder is alleged to have been committed for a particular motive then it is relevant to inquire whether the murder has been committed with the alleged motive. Where there is clear proof of of motive for the crime that lends additional support to the the finding of the court that the accused was guilty, but the absence of clear proof of motive does not necessarily lead to the contrary conclusion. Absence of proof of motive requires that the other evidence bearing on the guilt of the accused has to be very scrutinly examined.

So we can infer that Motive by itself is either sufficient to prove guilt of accused or relevant for determining his guilt or innocence. However, it, being a compelling force to commit murder, becomes relevent in determining the guilt of an individual or of the quantum of punishment. Motive is of gross importance in aggravation or mitigation of sentence. If motive is clear, it makes possible to comprehend the relevent intention. Hence we can say that motive is always relevant in deciding murder cases and court always takes it into consideration.