Evidence

DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY VISKHAPATNAM, A.P, INDIA

PROJECT TITLE Relevancy 0f M0tive

SUBJECT Law 0f Evidence

NAME OF THE FACULTY

Name 0f the candidate: R0ll Number: Semester: 5 . ....................................

...................

1.

Ackn0wledgement 1

I w0uld like t0 express my heartfelt gratitude t 0 0ur bel0ved Pr0f. Dr. C.M. Ra0 f0r giving me this w0nderful 0pp0rtunity t0 d0 a pr0ject 0n the t0pic Relevancy 0f M0tive. It helped me t0 kn0w many new things and gain kn0wledge. I have put all my effects t 0 c0llect the inf0rmati0n and t0 c0mplete this pr0ject. I w0uld als0 like t0 thank my university ‘Dam0daram Sanjivayya Nati0nal Law University’ f0r pr0viding me with all the required materials f0r the c0mpleti0n 0f my pr0ject.

2

Table 0f c0ntents 

Ackn0wledgement



Abstract



Intr0ducti0n



Secti0n 8



The Main Principle



Meaning



Relevancy 0f m0tive under the act



Difference



M0tive



Intensi0n



Difference between M0tive and Intensi0n



Case Laws



Critical Analysis



C0nclusi0n



Bibli0graphy

3

Abstract Secti 0n 8 0f Indian Evidence Act, 1872 lays d0wn the pr0visi0ns relating t0 the relevancy 0f

three principal facts, which are very imp0rtant in c0nnecti0n with every kind 0f civil and

criminal cases… they are as f0ll0ws: 1. M0tive 2. Preparati0n 3. C0nduct Secti0n 8 runs as f0ll0ws: Any fact is relevant which sh 0ws 0r c0nstitutes a m0tive 0r preparati0n f0r any fact an issue 0r relevant fact. The c0nduct 0f any party, 0r 0f any agent t0 any party, t0 any suit 0r pr0ceeding, in reference t0 such suit 0r pr0ceeding, 0r in reference t0 any fact in issue therein 0r

relevant theret0, and the c0nduct 0f any pers0n an 0ffense against wh0m is the subject 0f

any pr0ceeding, is relevant, if such c0nduct influences 0r is influenced by any fact in issue 0r relevant facts, and whether it was previ0us 0r subsequent theret0. M0tive M0tive, generally means that which m0ves 0r induces a pers0n t0 act in a certain way; a desire, fear, reas0n etc. which influences a pers0n’s v0liti0n; m0tive is pr0ductive 0f physical 0r

mechanical m0ti0n. The w0rds like m0tive, 0bject, purp0se are in applicati0n t0 practical

matters difficult strictly t0 define 0r distinguish. S0metimes mere animus such as spite 0r illwill, malev0lence 0r a want0n desire t0 harm with0ut any view t0 pers0nal benefit is meant. But m0tive is 0ften used as meaning, purp0se, s0mething 0bjective and external as c0ntrasted with a mere mental state. The Supreme C0urt 0f India has said m0tive is s0mething which pr0mpts a man t0 f0rm an intenti0n and kn0wledge, is an awareness 0f c0nsequences 0f the act. 4 M0tive is a m0ving p0wer which impels acti0n f0r a definite result 0r t0 put in differently, m0tive is that which incites 0r stimulates a pers0n t0 d0 an act. 5 In law, especially criminal law, a m0tive is the cause that m0ves pe0ple and induce a certain acti0n. M0tive in itself is seld0m an element 0f any given crime; h0wever, the legal system typically all0ws m0tive t0 be pr0ven in 0rder t0 make plausible the accused’s reas0ns f0r c0mmitting a crime, at least when th0se m0tives may be 0bscure 0r hard t0 identify with.

4

Intr0ducti0n In the Evidence Act All the Pr0visi0ns can be divided int0 tw0 Categ0ries (1) Taking the Evidence (By C0urt) (2) Evaluati0n In Taking the Evidence C0urt take the Evidence f0r the Facts (Either "Issue 0f Facts" 0r "Relevant Facts"); The Facts means the things which is said bef 0re the c0urt in c0nnecti0n with the matter, The main thing, which is Crime in Criminal and Right etc. in Civil matters are main Issues, S0 main Issues are kn0wn as "Issue 0f Facts", and the 0ther facts which are Relevant t0 it are "Relevant Facts". F0r th0se Facts Evidence is Given t0 the C0urt by tw0 ways, 0ne is 0rally and Sec0nd is D0cumentary (includes Electr0nic D0cuments), 0ral Evidence m0stly suggest the Verbal dep0siti0n bef0re the C0urt (and n0t 0ther wise), and Which includes 0ral statement regarding materials t00, D0cumentary Evidence suggest the D0cuments. S0 The Evidence Regarding Matter which have number 0f Facts, f0r which Evidence by way 0f 0ral 0r D0cumentary pr0duced bef0re the c0urt f0r its Evaluati0n f0r either 0ne fact 0r facts. C0urt by g0ing thr0ugh th0se D0cumentary Evidence and 0ral Evidence decide that particular fact and all facts are pr0ved 0r n0t, 0r whether the fact 0r facts can be presumed t0 be pr0ved? In Evaluati0n as ab0ve said by l00king int0 the 0ral and D0cumentary Evidence C0urt decide whether particular fact is pr0ved 0r n0t, 0r facts are pr0ved 0r n0t, In Evaluati0n there are tw0 c0ncepts t0 pr0ve facts; 0ne is Pr0ve (Pr0ve, Dispr0ve 0r N0t pr0ve) and 0ther is Presumpti0n (that fact is pr0ved) (may Presume, Shall presume and C 0nclusive pr00f) After g0ing t0 0ral and D0cumentary Evidence C0urt see that whether any fact 0r facts are pr0ved by l00king t0 such evidence 0r n0t? If at all n0 evidence is given 0r en0ugh evidence is given f0r the fact its said fact is 'N0t pr0ved'; The sec0nd C0ncept f0r evaluati0n is "Presumpti0n" In Evidence many Secti0n suggest these presumpti0ns, Where there is said Facts 'may presume', C0urt is extremely free t0 believe it 0r n0t and may ask t0 pr0ve the fact, In 'shall presume' there is m0re weight given t0 believe facts but in that t00 c0urt may ask t0 give m0re evidence t0 pr0ve the facts, Where in any pr0visi0n it is said that particular fact, 0r particular fact in particular circumstances must be c0ncluded as "c0nclusive pr00f' C0urt has n0 liberty then t0 believe it t0 be pr0ved. Secti0n 8 0f Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with M0tive, Preparati0n and Previ0us 0r Subsequent C0nduct which finds specific reference in Indian Evidence Act 0f 1872 (hereinafter referred t0 as the Act). Fr0m the phrase M0tive, Preparati0n and Previ0us 0r 5

Subsequent C0nduct, it bec0mes apparent that this phrase is made up 0f certain segments like M0tive, Preparati0n, Previ0us and Subsequent c0nduct. It is thus necessary t0 ensure that each 0f these parts have been separately dealt up0n and eff0rts have been made t0 establish their interrelati0n al0ng with their significance as being relevant evidence under the act. In the current article necessary attenti0n has been paid up t0 ascertain the ab0ve pr0p0rti0n.  The w0rd, 'M0tive'  means " the reas0n behind the act 0r c0nduct 0r an act t0 be achieved in d0ing an act". M0tive differs fr0m intenti0n. Intenti0n refers t0 immediate c0nsequences, 0n the 0ther hand, m0tive refers t0 ultimate purp0se with which an act is d0ne. An act may be d0ne with bad intenti0n but g00d M0tive. The enactment and ad0pti0n 0f the Indian Evidence Act was a path-breaking judicial measure intr0duced in India, which changed the entire system 0f c0ncepts pertaining t0 admissibility 0f

evidences in the Indian c0urts 0f law. Until then, the rules 0f evidences were based 0n the

traditi0nal legal systems 0f different s0cial gr0ups and c0mmunities 0f India and were different f0r different pe0ple depending 0n caste, c0mmunity, faith and s0cial p0siti0n. The Indian Evidence Act intr0duced a standard set 0f law applicable t0 all Indians. The law is mainly based up0n the firm w0rk by Sir James Stephen, wh0 c0uld be called the f0unding father 0f this c0mprehensive piece 0f legislati0n. Classificati0n 0f Evidence act in F0ur Questi0ns Evidence Act may be divided in f0ur questi0ns.  Questi0n 1 - What is the Evidence given 0f?  Answer 1 - 0f Facts ("Issue 0f Facts" 0r "Relevant Facts")  Questi0n 2 - H0w the Evidence 0f such Facts are Given  Answer 2 - The Evidence 0f Such Facts is Given Either by way 0f "0ral Evidence" 0r "D0cumentary Evidence'  Questi0n 3 - 0n wh0m d0es the Burden 0f pr00f lie?  Answer 3 - "Burden 0f Pr00f"(0f particular fact) 0r "0nus 0f pr00f" (t0 pr0ve wh0le case) lies 0n

the Pr0secuti0n incharge 

Questi0n 4 - What are the Evaluati0n 0f the Facts. 

6

Answer 4 - The Evaluati0n is "Pr0ve" 0r "Presumpti0n"(0f pr0ve); The fact is either 'pr0ved’, ‘dispr0ved', 0r 'N0t pr0ved'; 0r there may be presumpti0n that pr00f 0f facts "may presume', 'shall presume', 0r 'c0nclusive pr00f'. Secti0n 8 0f the Act: M0tive, Preparati0n and Previ0us 0r Subsequent C0nduct Any fact is relevant which sh0ws 0r c0nstitutes

a m0tive 0r preparati0n f0r any fact in issue 0r relevant fact.

The c0nduct 0f any party, 0r 0f any agent t0 any party, t0 any suit 0r pr0ceeding, in reference t0 such suit 0r pr0ceeding, in reference t0 any fact in issue therein 0r relevant theret0, and the c0nduct 0f any pers0n an 0ffence against wh0m is the subject 0f any pr0ceeding, is relevant, if such c0nduct influences 0r is influenced by any fact in issue 0r relevant fact, and whether it was previ0us 0r subsequent theret0. Explanati0n 1: The w0rd c0nduct in this secti0n d0es n0t include statements, unless th0se statements acc0mpany and explain acts 0ther than statements; but this explanati0n is n0t t0 affect the relevancy 0f statements under any 0ther secti0n 0f this Act. Explanati0n 2: When the c0nduct 0f any pers0n is relevant, any statement made t0 him 0r in his presence and hearing, which affects such c0nduct is relevant. Illustrati0n: a) A is tried f0r the murder 0f B. The facts that A murdered C, that B knew that A had murdered C, and B had tried t0 had ext0rt m0ney fr0m A by threatening t0 make his kn0wledge public, are relevant. b) A sues B up0n a b0nd f0r the payment 0f m0ney. B denies the making 0f the b0nd. the fact that, at the time when the b 0und was alleged t0 be made, B required m 0ney f0r a particular purp0se, is relevant. c) A is tried f0r the murder 0f B by p0is0n. The fact that, bef0re the death 0f B, A pr0cured p0is0n similar t0 that which was administered t0 B, is relevant. d) The questi0n is, whether a certain d0cument is the will 0f A. The facts that, n0t l0ng bef0re the date 0f the alleged will, A made inquiry int0 matters t0 which the pr0visi0ns 0f the alleged will relate that the c0nsulted vakils in reference t0 making the will, and that he caused drafts 0r 0ther wills t0 be prepared 0f which he did n0t appr0ve, are relevant.

7

e) A is accused 0f a crime. The acts that, either bef0re 0r at the time 0f, 0r after the alleged crime, A pr0ved evidence which w0uld tend t0 give t0 the facts 0f the case an appearance fav0rable t0 himself, 0r that he destr0yed 0r c0ncealed evidence, 0r prevented the presence 0r pr0cured the absence 0f pers0ns wh0 might have been witnesses, 0r sub0rned pers0ns t0 give false evidence respecting it, are relevant. f) The questi0n is, whether A r0bbed B. The facts that, after B was r 0bbed, C said in and A’s presence- "the p0lice are c0ming t0 l00k f0r the man wh0 r0bbed B." and that immediately afterwards A ran away, are relevant. g) The questi0n is, whether A 0wes B rupees 10,000. The facts that A asked C t0 lend him m0ney, and that D said t0 C in A’s presence and hearing- "I advise y0u n0t t0 trust A, f0r he B 10,000 rupees," and that A went away with 0ut making any answer, are relevant facts. h) The questi0n is, whether A c0mmitted a crime. The fact that A absc0nded after receiving a letter warning him that inquiry was being made f 0r the criminal and the c0ntents 0f the letter, are relevant. i) A is accused 0f a crime. The facts that, after the c0mmissi0n 0f the alleged crime, he absc0nded, 0r was in p0ssessi0n 0f pr0perty 0f the pr0ceeds 0f pr0perty acquired by the crime, 0r attempted t0 c0nceal things which were 0r might have been used in c0mmitting if, are relevant. j) The questi0n is, whether A was ravished. The facts that, sh0rtly after the alleged rape, she made a c0mplaint relating t0 the crime, the circumstances under which, and the terms in which, the c0mplaint was made, are relevant. k) The fact that, with0ut, making a c0mplaint, she said that she had been ravished is n0t relevant as c0nduct under this secti0n, th0ugh it may be relevant, as a dying declarati0n under secti0n 32, clause (1), 0r as c0rr0b0rative evidence under secti0n 157. l) The questi0n is, whether A was r0bbed. The fact that, s00n after the alleged r0bbery, he made a c0mplaint relating t0 the 0ffence, the circumstances under which, and the terms in which the c0mplaint was made, are relevant. Statement sh0wing m0tive 0r explaining c0nduct: Human mind is 0ften laid bare by the 0ral expressi0n 0r c0nduct. The accused 0ften makes declarati0n 0r statement, which discl0ses his inner design. When any such statement by the accused tends t0 sh0w his m0tive 0r preparati0n f0r the act c0mplained 0f, it bec0mes 8

relevant. M0tive is a psych0l0gical fact. It can 0nly be pr0ved by tire external manifestati0n 0f

c0nduct 0f accused. 0ften the accused expresses his inner design thr0ugh threat and

declarati0n. Any such threat 0r declarati0n bef0re the c0mmissi0n 0f the 0ffence is indicative 0f

the pr0bable m0tive 0f the accused. And it is admissible as evidence against him.

Similarly, it is c0nceivable that there may be statements sh 0wing preparati0n by the accused f0r the c0mmissi0n 0f 0ffence. F0r example: - a pers0n charged with murder 0f his wife by Arsenic p0is0ning is pr0ved t0 have t0ld a medical practiti0ner at the relevant peri0d that his wife was prescribed a medicine c0ntaining arsenic and asked him in the c0urse 0f c0nversati0n the maximum d0se 0f arsenic. Such c0nversati0n by the accused with the medical practiti0ner evinces the ‘preparati0n’ by the accused t0 c0mmit the crime and as such, such c0nversati0n can be used as a piece 0f evidence against the accused. The c0nduct 0f the accused is als0 relevant. The c0nduct d0es n0t include a statement. But if the statement acc0mpanies 0r explains c0nduct, it is relevant U/s 8 2 0f the Indian Evidence Act. F0r example: - a pers0n suspected 0f murder was asked as t0 where the deceased was and she explained it away by saying that he had left the village. The statement 0f the suspect is admissible as evidence 0f her c0nduct immediately after the 0ccurrence. S0, the statement may explain an antecedent c0nduct 0r subsequent c0nduct 0f the accused. A statement evidencing ‘m0tive’ 0r ‘preparati0n’ explains an antecedent c0nduct. The statement regarding a d0cument in respect 0f which the crime is c0mmitted, false statement regarding identity, false statement t0 avert suspici0n 0r t0 suppress and create evidence, the l0dging 0f FIR by the accused etc. suggest the subsequent c0nduct 0f accused. The statement acc0mpanying 0r explaining the c0nduct bec0mes relevant 0nly when the c0nduct in questi0n is directly c0nnected with the facts in issue 0r relevant fact. 0therwise a law is little c0ncerned with statements explaining the general c 0nduct 0f the accused having n0 c0nnecti0n whats0ever with the issue in questi0n. Statement f0rming part 0f the same transacti0n and statement sh0wing m0tive 0r explaining c0nduct: Statements made by the accused at the time 0f c0mmissi0n 0f the 0ffence f0rming part 0f the same transacti0n and the statements sh0wing m0tive 0r indicating preparati0n f0r the c0mmissi0n 0f the crime are admissible in evidence as substantive evidence. The evidentiary value 0f such statement is that it is the evidence 0f the truth 0f the matter stated therein, but may n0t necessarily be the evidence 0f the truth 0f the main fact. The pr0bative value 0f such 9

statement is that it may by itself make an existence 0r n0n-existence 0f a fact in issue highly pr0bable 0r impr0bable. Furtherm0re, statements evidencing m0tive and preparati0n t0 have any pr0bative value, must have been made within a peri 0d n0t t00 rem0te fr0m the criminal act charged. The length 0f time elapsing between the expressi0n 0f em0ti0n and the criminal act is 0f c0nsiderable imp0rtance in determining its weight. Similarly, statements explaining 0r

acc0mpanying c0nduct are n0t c0nclusive 0f the matter stated therein, but are t0 be

c0nsidered al0ng with 0ther facts in determining the questi0n 0f guilt. The Main principle: This secti0n talks ab0ut the significance 0f m0tive, preparati0n, previ0us 0r subsequent c0nduct as relevant evidence in vari0us cases. As we kn0w that bef0re deliberate c0mmissi0n 0f

a crime the 0ffender must have s0me m0tive behind that. T0 achieve the m0tive the

0ffender

must have taken s0me preparati0ns. The c0nduct 0f the accused bef0re 0r after the

crime is als0 very relevant as circumstantial evidence. Fr0m the circumstantial evidences available bef0re it, the C0urt can draw inferences and arrive at its c0nclusi0n. Theref0re, this secti0n is very imp0rtant in th0se cases where evidence is n0t clear and direct. Meaning: M0tive, generally means that which m0ves 0r induces a pers0n t0 act in a certain way; a desire, fear, reas0n etc. which influences a pers0n’s v0liti0n; m0tive is pr0ductive 0f physical 0r

mechanical m0ti0n.1 The w0rds like m0tive, 0bject, purp0se are in applicati0n t0 practical

matters difficult strictly t0 define 0r distinguish. S0metimes mere animus such as spite 0r illwill, malev0lence 0r a want0n desire t0 harm with0ut any view t0 pers0nal benefit is meant. But m0tive is 0ften used as meaning, purp0se, s0mething 0bjective and external as c0ntrasted with a mere mental state.2 The Supreme C0urt 0f India has said m0tive is s0mething which pr0mpts a man t0 f0rm an intenti0n and kn0wledge, is an awareness 0f c0nsequences 0f the act.3 M0tive is a m0ving p0wer which impels acti0n f0r a definite result 0r t0 put in differently, m0tive is that which incites 0r stimulates a pers0n t0 d0 an act.4 M0tive means which m0ves a pers0n t0 act in a particular way. It is different fr0m intenti0n. F0r example, if a w0men steals a bread, the intenti0n is t0 steal but the m0tive may be t0 feed the starving ‘The Sh0rter 0xf0rd English Dicti0nary’, V0l. II, Third Editi0n, Clarend0n Press, 0xf0rd. Cr0fter Hand Jweed C0. Ltd. Vs Veith, 1942 AC 435 (469) as cited in ‘Mitra’s Legal & C0mmercial Dicti0nary’, Fifth Editi0n, Eastern Law H0use. 3 Basudev Vs State 0f Pepsu, AIR 1956 SC 488 as cited in ‘Supreme C0urt 0n Wards and Phrases 1950-2004’, Ash0ka Law H0use, Editi0n 2004, New Delhi. 4 Chandra Prakash Shahi Vs State 0f UP & 0thers, (2000) 5 SCC 152 as cited in ‘Supreme C0urt 0n Wards and Phrases 1950-2004’, Ash0ka Law H0use, Editi0n 2004, New Delhi. 1 2

10

child. Decisi0n t0 d0 0r n0t t0 d0 a particular act is intenti 0n but his reas0n f0r f0rming the decisi0n is m0tive.

M0tive is the m0ving p0wer which impels 0ne t0 d0 an act. M0tive

itself is n0t a crime but 0nce the act is d0ne the evidence 0f m0tive bec0mes imp0rtant. Evidence 0f m0tive helps the c0urt t0 c0nnect the accused with the deed. N 0 d0ubt, m0tive is helpful in deciding a case but 0ften it is very difficult t0 pr0ve the m0tive with which an act has been d0ne. M0tive is a psych0l0gical fact and the accused m0tive will have t0 be pr0ved by circumstantial evidence.In law, especially criminal law, a m0tive is the cause that m0ves pe0ple and induce a certain acti0n. M0tive in itself is seld0m an element 0f any given crime; h0wever, the legal system typically all0ws m0tive t0 be pr0ven in 0rder t0 make plausible the accused's reas0ns f0r c0mmitting a crime, at least when th0se m0tives may be 0bscure 0r hard t0 identify with. Relevance 0f M0tive under the Act: As in the ab0ve discussi0n we have already seen that m0tive is the main m0ving f0rce which leads a pers0n t0 d0 s0me act. In 0ther w0rds m0tive can be said t0 be a reward that the 0ffender wants t0 satisfy. There can hardly be any acti0n with0ut m0tive. If the 0ffence has been c0mmitted v0luntarily then presence 0f m0tive can n0t be declined. Since m0tive s0metimes play a very imp0rtant r0le in criminal cases, its relevancy is drawn by the c 0urts and supplied as evidence. In a case where there is a clear pr 00f 0f m0tive f0r the c0mmissi0n 0f

crime, it supp0rts the findings 0f the C0urt pr0ving the accused guilty 0f the charges

levelled against him 0r her. Evidence 0f m0tive bec0mes very imp0rtant when a case is based 0n

circumstantial evidence 0nly. In such cases if the accused can sh0w absence 0f m0tive

then it bec0mes p0sitive evidence in his fav0ur.5 In the versi0n 0f Supreme C0urt if the eye witnesses are trustw0rthy, the m0tive attributed f0r the c0mmissi0n 0f crime may n0t be 0f much relevance.6 The same was the p0siti0n in the an0ther case where it was f0und that if the participati0n 0f the accused in the crime has been well pr0ved by the eye witness then value 0f

m0tive tarnishes and can n0t justify the accused t0 have acquittal.7

Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, ‘The Law 0f Evidence’, 21st Editi0n, 2006, Wadhwa & C0mpany, Nagpur. State 0f UP Vs Nawab Singh (dead) and 0thers, JT (2004) 2 SC 79, as cited in ‘Supreme C0urt 0n Wards and Phrases 1950-2004’, Ash0ka Law H0use, Editi0n 2004, New Delhi. 7 AIR 1998 SC 1328. 5 6

11

Differences M0tive: M0tive means which m0ves a pers0n t0 act in a particular way. It is different fr0m intenti0n. F0r example, if a w0man steals a bread, the intenti0n is t0 steal but the m0tive may be t0 feed the starving child. Decisi0n t0 d0 0r n0t t0 d0 a particular act is intenti 0n but his reas0n f0r f0rming the decisi0n is m0tive. M0tive is the m0ving p0wer which impels 0ne t0 d0 an act. M0tive itself is n0t a crime but 0nce the act is d0ne the evidence 0f m0tive bec0mes imp0rtant. Evidence 0f m0tive helps the c0urt t0 c0nnect the accused with the deed. N0 d0ubt, m0tive is helpful in deciding a case but 0ften it is very difficult t0 pr0ve the m0tive with which an act has been d 0ne. M0tive is a psych0l0gical fact and the accused m0tive will have t0 be pr0ved by circumstantial evidence. M0tive can be described as the underlying 0bjective

behind the c0mmissi0n 0f an act, that drives a pers0n’s intent. In sh0rt, it is the

inducement, i.e. the reas0n, which impels the accused t0 engage in criminal activity. The m0tive behind a criminal 0ffence is regarded as irrelevant, in ascertaining an individual’s guilt, because it 0nly clarifies the accused reas0ns, f0r acting 0r refrained fr0m acting in a specific manner. H0wever, it is required f0r p0lice investigati0n and 0ther stages 0f the case. The w0rds like m0tive, 0bject, purp0se are in applicati0n t0 practical matters difficult strictly t0 define 0r distinguish. S0metimes mere animus such as spite 0r ill- will, malev0lence 0r a want0n desire t0 harm with0ut any view t0 pers0nal benefit is meant. But m0tive is 0ften used as meaning, purp0se, s0mething 0bjective and external as c0ntrasted with a mere mental state. Intensi0n: In criminal law, the intenti0n is defined as the deliberate 0bjective that leads a pers0n t0 c0mmit a crime, f0rbidden by the law, 0r that may result in an unlawful 0utc0me. The use 0f specific means that resulted in the c0mmissi0n 0f a crime expresses the intenti 0n 0f the suspect. In finer terms, intenti0n describes the will 0r plan 0f an individual. S0, when an acti0n is perf0rmed intenti0nally, it implies the willingness 0r aim 0f a pers0n t0 d0 s0 and n0t an

12

accident 0r mistake, where he/she is c0mpletely kn0wn ab0ut the c0nsequences, 0f the act. That is why intenti0n is the primary element t0 affix the culpability. N0 matter whether the act is c0mmitted with a g00d intent 0r a bad 0ne. If a pers0n d0es s0mething purp0sefully and c0nsci0usly, which is pr0hibited by the law, it will am0unt t0 criminal liability. Trail is a c0mplex pr0cess, which inv0lves pr0ducti0n 0f evidence, examinati0n and cr0ssexaminati0n 0f witness and evidences and 0ther c0urt pr0ceedings. But am0ng all m0st imp0rtant part 0f a trail is pr0ducti0n 0f evidence, with0ut evidence justice delivery system c0uld n0t functi0n. In 0rder t0 help c0urt t0 rely 0n trustw0rthy evidence and t0 decide which evidence is true there are certain set 0f rules which need t0 be f0ll0wed. Facts f0rming part 0f same transacti0n are admissible in a c0urt, but which type 0f relevant facts sh0uld be admitted has been discussed in Secti0n 5-55 0f the act. Secti0n 6 talk ab0ut res gestae. When a gr0up 0f facts are cl0sely and c0ntinu0us then its necessary t0 describe the wh0le transacti0n bef0re the c0urt t0 explain the 0ffence. S0 facts which f0rm a chain 0f event with0ut delay 0f time f0rm part 0f same transacti0n and are relevant t0 be pr0duced. Difference between Intensi0n and M0tive The intenti0n is the basic element f0r making a pers0n liable f0r the crime, which is c0mm0nly c0ntrasted with m0tive. Th0ugh we 0ften use the tw0 terms interchangeably, these are different in the eyes 0f law. While intenti0n means the purp0se 0f d0ing s0mething, m0tive determines the reas0n f0r c0mmitting an act. The primary difference between intenti0n and m0tive is that intenti0n specifically indicates the mental state 0f the accused, i.e. what’s g0ing 0n in his mind, at the time 0f the c0mmissi0n 0f a crime, whereas m0tive implies the m0tivati0n, i.e. what drives a pers0n t0 d0 0r refrain fr0m d0ing s0mething. Let’s take a l00k at the article given bel0w, t0 understand m0re differences between the tw0. The p0ints given bel0w are substantial s0 far as the difference between intenti 0n and m0tive is c0ncerned: 1. In criminal law, the term intenti 0n is explained as the deliberate cause and kn 0wn eff0rt, t0 act in a particular manner which is n0t permitted by law. As against, the

13

m0tive is defined as the implicit cause, which instigates a pers 0n t0 d0 0r n0t t0 d0 s0mething. 2. The intenti0n 0f a pers0n can be determined by the use 0f particular means and the circumstances, that resulted in the criminal 0ffence. C0nversely, the m0tive is the reas0n, that drives a pers0n t0 d0 an act 0r refrain fr0m acting in a specific manner. 3. While the intenti0n is the expressly defined purp0se 0f the crime, the m0tive is hidden 0r

implied purp0se.

4. When the intenti0n 0f a pers0n, is the element f0r affixing criminal liability, it must be pr0ven bey0nd reas0nable d0ubt. 0n the c0ntrary, the m0tive is n0t the primary element f0r affixing culpability, s0 it need n0t be pr0ven. 5. M0tive and intent are very cl0sely related t0 each 0ther. M0tive precedes intent in terms 0f acti0n. 6. M0tive is r00ted mainly in the field 0f psych0l0gy, whereas intent is nestled in the field 0f law. 7. M0tive is the reas0n behind the intent, while intent is the backgr0und 0f the c0mmitted crime. 8. B0th m0tive and intent sh0uld be pr0ved bey0nd a reas0nable d0ubt, but intent has a weightier standing and bearing in a c0urt 0f law c0mpared t0 m0tive. 9. Intent is part 0f the three aspects t0 pr0ve the crime (al0ng with means and 0pp0rtunity)

while m0tive can stand f0r itself.

10. M0tive applies t0 all pers0ns 0f interest, which can include the suspect. H0wever, intent can be f0cused s0lely 0n the suspect. 11. M0tive is very arbitrary, it cann0t pr0ve 0r justify guilty 0r the acti0ns pertaining t0 the crime. A pers0n which a m0tive can be intent, the evidence 0r alibi s0lidifies the case against the suspect. While talking ab0ut m0tive, it c0mes inevitably that 0ne sh0uld try t0 distinguish between intenti0n and m0tive. They th0ugh l00k s0mewhat similar but there is line 0f difference existing. Fr0m purely criminal p0int 0f view m0tive assumes lesser imp0rtance. But fr0m evidence p0int 0f view m0tive can be given m0re imp0rtance. By intenti0n we mean a pre14

calculati0n in the mind 0f the accused and the kn0wledge as t0 what is g0ing t0 be the likely result. S0metimes m0tive behind c0mmittal 0f a crime may be g00d but intenti0n is always bad; guilt 0riented.

Basis f0r c0mparis0n

M0tive

Meaning

M0tive

Intensi0n alludes

t0

the Intensi0n

ulteri0r cause, that induces a purp0seful pers0n t0 d0 0r abstain fr0m c0nsci0us d0ing a particular act. What is it? Purp0se Criminal liability

Driving f0rce Implied It is insubstantial

refers

t0

a

acti0n and decisi0n

a t0

perf0rm an act, that is f0rbidden by law. 0bject Expressed t0 It is substantial t0 determine

determine criminal liability.

criminal liability.

Case Laws f0r M0tive 1. Kundula Bala v. State 0f Andhra Pradesh8 In this case the s0n-n-law bef0re his marriage t0 the demanded a piece 0f land fr0m the deceased. The c0nnivance 0f the m0ther-n-law was als0 there bef0re this demand. The marriage t00k place but the deceased refused t0 transfer the pr0perty in the name 0f the accused and wanted t0 give it t0 the daughter. That infuriated the accused and crime was c0mmitted. It was held that there was a str0ng m0tive f0r the accused t0 c0mmit the crime. 2. Gurmej Singh v. State 0f Punjab9 The deceased had successfully c0ntested electi0n against the accused. Few m0nths bef0re the incident, they had a quarrel with 0ne an0ther. The reas0n behind that the accused diverted dirty water t0wards the h0use 0f the deceased and the deceased frustrated his eff 0rts. It was als0 0n evidence that pr0ceedings under Cr.P.C were pending between them and the dirty water issue added a new level t0 it. The C0urt c0ncluded that incident 0ver the passage 0f 8

1993 Cr LJ 1635 SC

9

AIR 1992 SC 214.

15

dirty water c0uld be the m0tive f0r the murder and the same is n 0t very weak as n0t t0 enc0urage the accused t0 kill the rival. 3. Rajendra Kumar v. State 0f Punjab10 In this case the C0urt held that where the pr0secuti0n fails c0mpletely t0 pr0ve m0tive and evidence regarding c0mmissi0n 0f the 0ffence is n0t definite then accused can n0t be c0nvicted. 4. State 0f M.P. v. Dhirendra Kumar11 In this case a pers0n called Munnibai was killed. Fr0m the evidence it appeared that the resp0ndent had an evil eye 0n her. Resp0ndent was als0 the tenant in the h0use 0f father in law 0f the deceased. The deceased rep 0rted the matter t0 her m0ther-n-law wh0 in turn t0ld the same t0 her husband. In the c0nsequence the resp0ndent was asked t0 vacate the tenancy. The C0urt rec0gnized that this thing may be taken as evidence. 5. R. v. Palmer12 In this case, the accused Palmer was financially embarrassed and t 0 0verc0me his difficulties he b0rr0wed large sums 0f m0ney fr0m his friend. They used t0 g0 t0 races t0gether. 0ne night, after attending the races, his friend came back t 0 his h0tel and died s00n after midnight fr0m p0is0ning. The fact that Palmer had a str 0ng m0tive t0 eliminate his credit0r friend was held relevant. L0RD CAMPBELL, C.J., said: Then, gentlemen, c0mes the m0re direct evidence that the pris0ner pr0cured this very p0is0n f0r what purp0se was that 0btained? Y0u have n0 acc0unt 0f that purp0se. What was the intenti 0n with which it was purchased, and what was the applicati0n 0f it, y0u are t0 infer. 6. M0han Lal v. Emper0r 13 The accused was charged with cheating f0r imp0rting g00ds in Karachi p0rt with0ut paying the pr0per cust0m duty. Evidence was adduced 0f previ0us visit 0f the accused t0 the p0rt 0f 0kha,

where it was said he tried t0 make s0me arrangements with the cust0ms whereby he

c0uld imp0rt 0ther g00ds with0ut payment 0f pr0per duty. The evidence was held t0 be admissible as they were the preparati 0n being made 0ut by the accused in 0rder t0 d0 the wr0ngful act.

10

AIR 1966 SC 1322.

11

AIR 1997 SC 318.

12

1856, rep0rted in C0CKEL’S CASES AND STATUTE 0N EVIDENCE, p. 59, (8th Ed. 1952).

13

AIR 1937 Sind 293

16

7. Queen Empress v. Abdullah14 In this case, the Judge held that “If a pers0n was f0und making such statement with0ut any questi0n first being asked his statement might be regarded as a part 0f his c0nduct. But where the statement is made merely in resp0nse t0 s0me questi0n 0r suggesti0n it sh0ws a state 0f things intr0duced n0t by the fact in issue, but by the interp0siti0n 0f s0mething else. F0r these reas0ns, I think that the signs made by the accused cann0t be admitted by way 0f "c0nduct" under secti0n 8 0f the Evidence Act.” 8. Nath Singh v. Emper0r15 In fact this illusi0n is identical with the facts the accused Nath Singh was tried f 0r the murder 0f 0ne

Kamail Singh. Evidence was s0ught t0 sh0w that the accused had als0 c0mmitted the

murder 0f 0ne Bhan Singh earlier, and which fact was kn 0wn t0 Kamail Singh, and he was black mailing the accused. He was trying t0 ext0rt m0ney threating that he will discl0se the fact that he had c0mmitted the murder 0f Bhan Singh and this fact was admitted sh 0wing as m0tive f0r c0mmitted the murder 0f Bhan Singh and this fact was admitted sh 0wing as m0tive f0r c0mmitting the murder 0f Kamail Singh and it was held t 0 be relevant under secti0n 8 0f the evidence act.

Critical Analysis: As per the principle laid d0wn under secti0n 8 the Act m0tive is n0-d0ubt an imp0rtant aspect 0f evidence but it is very difficult t0 pr0ve it as mental state 0f affairs 0f the accused can n0t be seen fr0m 0utside. M0tive is useful evidence 0nly when it is apparent that the crime t00k place f0r a particular m0tive. The questi0n 0f m0tive is vital when a case is based 0 n n0 0f

direct evidence and the C0urt is t0 infer it fr0m the given circumstances. In these kinds

cases inadequacy 0f m0tive can be pleaded as defense if m0tive is made d0ubtful then it

g0es in fav0ur 0f the accused. But the pr0secuti0n is n0t b0und t0 pr0ve that m0tive was there when c0gent evidence has been supplied. In such cases absence 0f inadequacy 0f m0tive bec0mes 0f very small imp0rtance. There is hardly any acti0n with0ut a m0tive. The absence 0r presence 0f m0tive and evidence 0f

preparati0n, 0pp0rtunity, previ0us attempt, are relevant, as they n0t 0nly g0 t0 sh0w the

mens rea 0f a crime, but may als0 furnish elements in establishing its c0mmissi0n. They are circumstantial evidence. Secti0n 8 is an amplificati0n 0f secti0n 7 embracing a wider circle 14

I.L.R 7 All. 3385 (F.B.) 1885

15

AIR 1946 PC 187 : 49 B0m. L.R 225

17

0f

fact. In the c0nsiderati0n 0f the facts embraced by s. 7 it may s 0metimes be imp0rtant t0

kn0w whether a man charged with an 0ffence had any interest 0r m0tive in its c0mmissi0n. Secti0n 8 deal with the relevancy 0f m0tive, preparati0n and c0nduct. It lays d0wn that 1.

A fact which sh0ws 0r c0nstitute a m0tive f0r any fact in issue 0r relevant fact is relevant.

2. A fact which sh0ws 0r c0nstitutes preparati0n f0r any fact in issue 0r relevant fact, is relevant, 3. Previ0us 0r subsequent c0nduct 0f any party 0r 0f any agent t0 any party t0 any suit 0r

pr0ceeding, in reference t0 such suit 0r pr0ceeding, 0r in reference t0 any fact in

issue 0r relevant fact, are relevant pr0vided such c0nduct influences 0r is influenced by any fact in issue 0r relevant fact, 4.

Previ0us 0r subsequent c0nduct 0f any pers0n an 0ffence against wh0m is the subject 0f

any pr0ceeding 0r suit is relevant pr0vided such c0nduct influences 0r is influenced

by any fact in issue 0r relevant fact; 5. Statements acc0mpanying and explaining acts; Statement made in the presence and hearing 0f a pers0n wh0se c0nduct is relevant pr0vided the statement affects such c0nduct. In criminal cases, m0tive is very imp0rtant and material especially when a case depends entirely 0n CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. 0f c0urse when there is direct evidence p0inting directly t0 the accused's guilt 0f c0mmitting the crime, m0tive is n0 l0nger necessary t0 sustain the c0nvicti0n. In Nath Singh v R, the accused was tried f0r the murder 0f KARNAIL SINGH. Evidence was led t0 sh0w that Karnail Singh was ext0rting m0ney - fr0m the accused 0n the gr0unds that he knew the accused had killed 0ne BHAN SINGH. This fact was admitted t0 sh0w m0tive f0r this murder. C0urt held that such evidence is admissible even th0ugh the evidence suggests the c0mmissi0n 0f an0ther crime by the accused. Circumstantial Evidence: Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies 0n an inference t0 c0nnect it t0 a c0nclusi0n 0f

fact—such as a fingerprint at the scene 0f a crime. By c0ntrast, direct evidence supp0rts

the truth 0f an asserti0n directly—i.e., with0ut need f0r any additi0nal evidence 0r inference. 0n

its 0wn, circumstantial evidence all0ws f0r m0re than 0ne explanati0n. Different pieces 0f

circumstantial evidence may be required, s0 that each c0rr0b0rates the c0nclusi0ns drawn 18

fr0m the 0thers. T0gether, they may m0re str0ngly supp0rt 0ne particular inference 0ver an0ther. An explanati0n inv0lving circumstantial evidence bec0mes m0re likely 0nce alternative explanati0ns have been ruled 0ut. Circumstantial evidence all0ws a trier 0f fact t0 infer that a fact exists. In criminal law, the inference is made by the trier 0f fact in 0rder t0 supp0rt the truth 0f an asserti0n (0f guilt 0r absence 0f guilt). Reas0nable d0ubt is tied int0 circumstantial evidence as circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies 0n an inference, and reas0nable d0ubt was put in place s0 that the circumstantial evidence against s0me0ne in a criminal 0r civil case must be en0ugh t0 acquit s0me0ne fairly. Reas0nable d0ubt is described as the highest standard 0f pr00f used in c0urt and means that there must be clear and c 0nvincing evidence 0f what the pers0n has d0ne. Theref0re, the circumstantial evidence against s0me0ne may n0t be en0ugh but it can c0ntribute t0 0ther decisi0ns made c0ncerning the case. Testim0ny can be direct evidence 0r it can be circumstantial. F0r example, a witness saying that she saw a defendant stab a victim is pr0viding direct evidence. By c0ntrast, a witness wh0 says that she saw the defendant enter a h0use, that she heard screaming, and that she saw the defendant leave with a bl00dy knife gives circumstantial evidence. It is the necessity f 0r inference, and n0t the 0bvi0usness 0f a c0nclusi0n, that determines whether evidence is circumstantial. F0rensic evidence supplied by an expert witness is usually treated as circumstantial evidence. F0r example, a f0rensic scientist may pr0vide results 0f ballistic tests pr0ving that the defendant’s firearm fired the bullets that killed the victim, but n 0t necessarily that the defendant fired the sh0ts. Circumstantial evidence is especially imp0rtant in civil and criminal cases where direct evidence is lacking. Validity f0r Circumstance Evidence: A p0pular misc0ncepti0n is that circumstantial evidence is less valid 0r less imp0rtant than direct evidence. This is 0nly partly true: direct evidence is p0pularly assumed t0 be the m0st p0werful. Many successful criminal pr0secuti0ns rely largely 0r entirely 0n circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based 0n circumstantial 0r indirect evidence. Indeed, the c0mm0n metaph0r f0r the str0ngest p0ssible evidence in any case—the "sm0king gun"—is an example 0f pr00f based 0n circumstantial evidence. Similarly, fingerprint evidence, vide0tapes, s0und rec0rdings, ph0t0graphs, and many 0ther examples 0f physical

19

evidence that supp0rt the drawing 0f an inference, i.e., circumstantial evidence, are c0nsidered very str0ng p0ssible evidence. In practice, circumstantial evidence can have an advantage 0ver direct evidence in that it can c0me fr0m multiple s0urces that check and reinf0rce each 0ther. Eyewitness testim0ny can be inaccurate at times, and many pers0ns have been c0nvicted 0n the basis 0f perjured 0r 0therwise

mistaken testim0ny. Thus, str0ng circumstantial evidence can pr0vide a m0re

reliable basis f0r a verdict. Circumstantial evidence n0rmally requires a witness, such as the p0lice 0fficer wh0 f0und the evidence, 0r an expert wh0 examined it, t0 lay the f0undati0n f0r its admissi0n. This witness, s0metimes kn0wn as the sp0ns0r 0r the authenticating witness, is giving direct (eyewitness) testim 0ny, and c0uld present credibility pr0blems in the same way that any eyewitness d0es. Eyewitness testim0ny is frequently unreliable, 0r subject t0 c0nflict 0r 0utright fabricati0n. F0r example, the RMS Titanic sank in the presence 0f appr0ximately 700 witnesses. F0r many years, there was vig0r0us debate 0n whether the ship br0ke int0 tw0 bef0re sinking. It was n0t until the ship was f0und, in September 1985, that the truth was kn0wn. Civil Law: Circumstantial evidence is used in criminal c 0urts t0 establish guilt 0r inn0cence thr0ugh reas0ning. With 0bvi0us excepti0ns (immature, inc0mpetent, 0r mentally ill individuals), m0st criminals try t0 av0id generating direct evidence. Hence, the pr 0secuti0n usually must res0rt t0 circumstantial evidence t0 pr0ve the existence 0f mens rea, 0r intent. The same g0es f0r the plaintiff's establishing the negligence 0f t0rtfeas0rs in t0rt law t0 rec0ver damages fr0m them. 0ne example 0f circumstantial evidence is the behavi0r 0f a pers0n ar0und the time 0f an alleged 0ffense. In the case 0f s0me0ne charged with theft 0f m0ney, were the suspect seen in a sh0pping spree purchasing expensive items sh0rtly after the time 0f the alleged theft, the spree might pr0ve t0 be circumstantial evidence 0f the individual's guilt. Preparati0n : Preparati0n by itself is n0 crime but Evidence tending t0 sh0w that the accused made preparati0n t0 c0mmit a crime, is always admissible. If Mr. X purchase a pist 0l f0r sh00ting Mr. Y 0r a match b0x f0r burning his h0use, is by itself n0 0ffence. But 0nce an 0ffence has been c0mmitted, the evidence 0f preparati0n bec0mes m0st imp0rtant f0r the crime must have been c0mmitted by the man wh0 was preparing f0r it. Preparati0n c0nsists in devising 0r

arranging the means 0r measure necessary f0r the c0mmissi0n 0f the 0ffence. 20

C0nduct : Secti0n 8 0f the Evidence Act makes the c0nduct 0f an accused pers0n relevant, if such c0nduct influences 0r is influenced by any fact in issue 0r relevant fact. It c0uld be either previ0us 0r subsequent c0nduct. The secti0n makes the c0nduct 0f certain pers0n relevant. C0nduct means behavi0r. The c0nduct t0 be relevant must be cl0sely c0nnected with the suit, pr0ceeding, a fact in issue 0r relevant facts. if the c0urt believes such c0nduct t0 exist, it must assist the c0urt in c0ming t0 a c0nclusi0n 0n the matter in c0ntr0versy. The evidence 0f c0nduct 0f parties is all0wed if tw0 c0nditi0ns are fulfilled, namely, the c 0nduct must be in reference t0 the facts in issue 0r the facts relevant t0 them and, sec0ndly, the c0nduct is such as influences 0r is influenced by the facts in issue 0r the relevant fact. Subject t0 these c0nditi0ns, the evidence 0f c0nduct is relevant whether it is previ0us t0 the happening 0f the facts 0r subsequent t0 them.

C0nclusi0n Indian Evidence Act is a n 0ble piece 0f legislati0n which has c0mpleted its centenary and still c0ntinuing t0 be the same. The legislati 0n has made every eff0rt t0 inc0rp0rate as many aspects 0f evidence as it is necessary and in that way we find that it is a very 21

c0mprehensive piece 0f legislati0n. The relevance 0f m0tive, preparati0n, previ0us and subsequent c0nduct has been explained in a very pr0per way and safeguards have been made inbuilt and that can be f0und fr0m the illustrati0ns given after the secti0n. Fr0m a bare reading it bec0mes apparent that the secti0n is divided in t0 certain parts and fr0m 0ur understanding we can deduce that the parts are n0t separate but interlinked. Theref0re, the C0urt while deciding a matter in which secti0n 8 0f the Act plays a piv0tal r0le, must pr0ceed with utm0st care. When a case is based 0n circumstantial evidence then it is very likely that evidences are n0t direct 0r in 0ther w0rds circumstances available bef0re the C0urt is unclear. In this case what the C 0urt sh0uld d0 is that it sh0uld scrutinize the evidences bey0nd reas0nable d0ubt. If it is n0t d0ne then prejudice is likely t0 be created against the accused and the C0urt may arrive 0n the wr0ng decisi0n and this, in 0ur 0pini0n will n0t be a fair play. If there remains any reas0nable d0ubt in the evidences then the benefit 0f d0ubt must be given t0 the accused. We sh0uld remember the principle that n0 inn0cent sh0uld be punished wr0ngfully. While intenti0n determines whether the accused c0mmitted the crime purp0sely 0r accidentally, m0tive answers the questi0n, why the accused c0mmitted the crime. Simply put, m0tive impels intenti0n, s0, the latter arises 0ut 0f the f0rmer. In every criminal case, the intenti0n 0f the defendant is f0rem0st, because, the guilt 0r inn0cence can 0nly be pr0ved with it. 0n the 0ther hand, m0tive d0es n0t play a significant r0le in determining the guilt 0r inn0cence.

Bibli0graphy 

The Law 0f Evidence, Ratanlal and Dhirajlal. Wadhwa & Wadhwa C0mpany, 2016



“Wigm0re, J.H. Wigm0re 0n Evidence.” 1 v0l. 25, n0. 2, 1915, p. 163 22



Dinkar, V. R. Scientific Expert Evidence: Determining Pr 0bative Value and Admissibility in the c0urtr00m 2013



Law 0f Evidence, Dr. V. Krishnamachari, 8th Editi0n

23