Saurabh Malik
Chandigarh, March 14
In a significant judgment, liable to change the way verdicts are delivered in criminal trials where intention behind the crime is not explicit, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that failure to ascertain the motive does not signify its non-existence. The Bench also made it clear that the failure to prove motive was not “fatal” to prosecution case as a matter of law.
Motive never indispensable for conviction
The proof of motive is never indispensable for conviction. Absence of proof of motive does not break the link in the chain of circumstances connecting the accused with the crime, nor militates against the prosecution case. HC Bench
The ruling by the Bench of Justice Ritu Bahri and Justice Ashok Kumar Verma came in a murder case where the appellant-husband mentally and physically harassed his wife “under the greed of dowry” before ultimately murdering her.
The accused had moved the HC after he was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life by the trial court. Challenging the order, his counsel among other things had contended that the appellant had no motive to commit the crime. The evidence led before the trial court, too, was insufficient to establish the motive.
Speaking for the Bench, Justice Verma asserted the court could not come to the conclusion that the appellant was not guilty merely because there was no eyewitness in the case. The fact remained that murder took place in the appellant’s house. The question, as such, was who authored the murder?
Justice Verma added it was well established that dowry demand was the motive behind the murder at the hands of the appellant. Even if it was assumed for the sake of arguments that motive was not made out, the fact remained that the case was based on circumstantial evidence.
“People do not act wholly without a motive. The failure to discover the motive of an offence does not signify its non-existencehellip;. The proof of motive is never indispensable for conviction. Absence of proof of motive does not break the link in the chain of circumstances connecting the accused with the crime, nor militates against the prosecution case. In the present case, facts and even the motive is clear that there was persistent demand of dowry,” Justice Verma added
Upholding the conviction on the behalf of the Bench, Justice Verma further added presumption contemplated under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act went against the accused. “This provision of law stipulates that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon himhellip;. It was the bounden duty of the appellant/accused to explain how the death of his wife occurred, as she was residing with him in her matrimonial home,” Justice Verma asserted.
Failure to find motive doesn’t signify its non-existence, rules High Court
{$excerpt:n}
