Supreme Court (Photo | Shekar Yadav, EPS) 
The Sunday Standard

Motive necessary for conviction if no eyewitness for crime, says Supreme Court

All the witnesses of fact who are family members have stated that there was no enmity between the appellant and the deceased.

Amit Mukherjee

NEW DELHI: The prosecution will have to establish the motive for commission of crime if there is no eyewitness of an incident, the Supreme Court said on Saturday while acquitting a man convicted for murder in 2008. Taking note of the facts that all the witnesses have stated that there was no enmity between the petitioner and the deceased, an apex court bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah observed, “Once there is no eyewitness of the incident, the prosecution will have to establish a motive for the commission of the crime in as much as in a case of direct evidence.”

The observations of the bench came in its order on a petition filed by a man challenging an order of the Chhattisgarh High Court, which confirmed his conviction under Section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence to undergo life imprisonment along with fine.

The bench, in its order, observed, “No motive has been set up by the prosecution as to why the appellant would assault the deceased. All the witnesses of fact who are family members have stated that there was no enmity between the appellant and the deceased.”

Taking into fact that there is no eyewitness of the incident, the bench said that the prosecution will have to establish a motive for the commission of the crime in as much as in a case of direct evidence, motive may not have a major role. “If there is no motive set up or proved and there are direct eyewitnesses, motive may lose its importance but in the present case as admittedly no one has seen the occurrence, the motive has an important role to play,” the bench said.

Taking note that the even medical evidence did not support the prosecution case “as the weapon of assault could not have caused injury on the deceased as noticed in the post-mortem report,” the bench also observed that “there was no motive as to why the appellant would commit the murder of an acquaintance and a friend for no reason.” Observing that in view of all facts “the prosecution had failed to establish the (murder) charge,” the bench in its order.

‘Linguistic imposition’ charge a ‘tired attempt’: Dharmendra Pradhan hits back at Stalin over three-language row

Raghav Chadha rejects AAP charges, says ‘I go to Parliament to create impact, not ruckus'

India rejects claims of Iranian oil cargo diversion to China, says no payment hurdles for imports

Posters featuring Nitish Kumar's son Nishant as next Bihar CM surface outside JD(U) office in Patna

Congress split on Iran stand as Sharma says politicisation is national disservice

SCROLL FOR NEXT