Complete Absence Of Motive In A Case Based On Circumstantial Evidence Weighs In Favour Of Accused : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that the absence of motive in a case depending on circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs in favour of the accused. "In a case based on substantial (circumstantial) evidence, motive assumes great significance. It is not as if motive alone becomes the crucial link in the case to be established by the prosecution and in its absence the case of...
The Supreme Court has held that the absence of motive in a case depending on circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs in favour of the accused.
"In a case based on substantial (circumstantial) evidence, motive assumes great significance. It is not as if motive alone becomes the crucial link in the case to be established by the prosecution and in its absence the case of Prosecution must be discarded. But, at the same time, complete absence of motive assumes a different complexion and such absence definitely weighs in favour of the accused."
A Bench comprising Justices U.U. Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and P.S. Narasimha allowed an appeal, assailing the order of Chhattisgarh High Court which refused to interfere with the conviction and sentence under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code imposed by the Trial Court, primarily on the ground of lack of motive. Accordingly, the appellant was acquitted.
Background
On 17.01.1997, the body of one Shiv Kumar Khairwar was recovered and consequently a crime was registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC"). The appellant was arrested for the said crime on 20.01.1997. The key of bicycle, the weapon, and blood-stained clothes were recovered based on his statements. Apart from such recoveries, the prosecution relied on the testimony of witnesses. The Trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. An appeal was filed which was eventually dismissed by the Chhattisgarh High Court.
Contentions raised by the appellant
Advocate-on-Record, Ms. Minakshi Vij, engaged by the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, appearing for the appellant, submitted that the prosecution failed to establish motive; the chain of circumstances. It was asserted that the prosecution's case was largely based on evidence of "last seen". Moreover, the recoveries made on the strength of the appellant's statement were affected seven days after the incident.
Contentions raised by the respondent
Advocate-on-Record, Mr. Gautam Narayan, appearing for the State submitted that the concurrent view of the Courts below were based on evidence on record and the recoveries conclusively established the culpability of the appellant.
Analysis by the Supreme Court
The Court noted that some of the witnesses were not examined. It was of the view that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, absence of motive weighs in favour of the accused. Reliance was placed on Anwar Ali v. State of Himachal Pradesh 1995 Supp (1) SCC 80 and Shivaji Chintappa Patil v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 9 SCC 152 to state that unlike in case of direct evidence, in case of circumstantial evidence motive is a crucial link to complete the chain of circumstances. The Court observed that the 'last seen' theory based on the evidence of one of the witnesses did not provide particulars or proximity in terms of time. It was of the opinion that the circumstantial evidence was not conclusively established by the prosecution.
"The circumstances on record do not make a complete chain to dispel any hypothesis of innocence of the appellant. The prosecution having failed to establish through clear, cogent and consistent evidence, the chain of events, on the basis of which the guilt of the appellant could be established, the courts below were not right in accepting the case of prosecution and convicting the appellant."
Case Name: Nandu Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 229
Case No. and Date: Criminal Appeal No.285 of 2022 | 25 Feb 2022
Corum: Justices U.U. Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and P.S. Narasimha
Authored By: Justice U.U. Lalit
Headnote
Criminal Litigation - Indian Penal Code - Section 302- prosecution had failed to establish and prove the motive - appellant acquitted - absence of proving motive cannot be ground for rejecting prosecution's case - But, if motive proved it would supply link in the chain of circumstantial evidence - absence of motive in a case of circumstantial evidence weighs in favour of the accused - motive not relevant in a case of direct evidence.
"In a case based on substantial evidence, motive assumes great significance. It is not as if motive alone becomes the crucial link in the case to be established by the prosecution and in its absence the case of Prosecution must be discarded. But, at the same time, complete absence of motive assumes a different complexion and such absence definitely weighs in favour of the accused." [Para 10]