Proof Of Motive Not Necessary To Sustain Conviction On Murder Charge When There’s Clear Evidence: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court held that the proof of motive is not necessary to sustain a conviction on a murder charge when there is clear evidence that the person had been done to death by the accused.

The Court held thus in a Criminal Appeal filed by an accused challenging his conviction by the Trial Court for the offence of murder.

A Division Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav observed, “Evidence of motive, which is frequently given in such cases is of subsidiary importance, and the mere fact that the accused had a motive to cause the death of the deceased is not a fact which will dispense with the proof of points that the accused had got a suitable immediate occasion for committing the crime and of actually committing it. The proof of motive is not necessary to sustain a conviction on a murder charge when there is clear evidence that the person had been done to death by the accused.”

The Bench added that when the facts establishing the charge are clear, it is immaterial that the motive has not been proved.

Advocate S.K. Sharma appeared for the Appellant/Accused, while APP Aashneet Singh appeared for the Respondent/State.

Case Background

In 1998, at about 2:00 a.m., one person namely Harpal alighted the car of his boss at red light Delhi Gate to board a bus and his boss left for his residential house. When he reached near Delhi Gate Monument, he saw the Appellant-accused catching hold of a rikshaw puller by his collar and abusing him with an intention to show his upmanship. Allegedly, the accused declared that since the rikshaw puller has refused to transport him to his house, he would kill him. With difficulty rikshaw puller got himself released from his clutches, at that juncture the accused pounced upon him, made him to lie, put his head on his thigh and started assaulting him with a stone lying there.

While so assaulting, he allegedly announced that he would finish him. On seeing this, Harpal started running towards Police Station, raising a hue and cry of “Maar Diya… Maar Diya”. It was further alleged that when the accused noticed presence of police nearby, he left the rikshaw puller and started running towards Delhi Gate bazaar. He struck against railing and fell down. He got up and again started running. He was over powered and Harpal made a statement against him, which culminated into an FIR. The injured expired in the hospital and after trial, the accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. Being aggrieved, he approached the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court in the above context of the case, said, “Maar Diya… Maar Diya” is a statement made contemporaneously with the act or immediately after it, without an opportunity for reflection or fabrication. Without an interval between the act and the said statement brings it within the concept of “res-gestae”. In criminal trial, hearsay evidence is admissible if it forms part of res- gestae, based on the proposition that human action may be so interwoven with words that the significance of the action cannot be understood without the correlative words and the disassociation of the words from the action would impede the discovery of truth.”

The Court noted that the words, “Maar Diya… Maar Diya”, sought to be proved are absolutely contemporaneous with the action or event and clearly associated with it to form part of the assault being made and part of the real evidence and not merely a reported statement.

“The statement, “Maar Diya… Maar Diya”, was made spontaneously and so closely connected in time and circumstances to the event it describes, for it was made immediately after the homicidal assault on the victim, hence relevant and admissible in evidence”, it added.

The Court elucidated that circumstantial evidence means combination of facts creating a net without there being any tear though which the accused can escape and it is just like a rope made of many strands to stay together. It further said that the rope has more than sufficient strength to bear the stress laid upon it though, if alone, the same filaments of which it is composed would be insufficient for that purpose.

“It is well settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the circumstantial evidence must be consistent and consistent only with the guilt of the accused. When evidence, brought herein, is appreciated we are of the opinion that there are no gaps, which may afford a slip to the Appellant to come out of that chain of event. The circumstances suggest to the only one inference that it was the Appellant and none else who caused fatal injuries to the deceased”, it remarked.

The Court was of the view that a man’s intention can only be gathered from his acts as every man is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his act and in deciding the question of intention, therefore, the nature of the weapon used, the part of the body on which the blow is given, the force of the blow and its number are some of the factors which assume importance.

“A counter attack made by Shri Sharma was that the prosecution has failed to prove motive of the Appellant to commit murder of Giani. The contention, so advanced, does not have any weight. Motive is not a necessary ingredient of an offence, for most of the grievous crimes are committed out of very flimsy and frivolous considerations”, it also noted.

Conclusion

Furthermore, the Court said that motive of an act may be known to the perpetrator and to none other and the investigator may not have been able to collect any information in regard thereto.

“We have no hesitation in concluding that the prosecution has successfully established the guilt of the accused for causing murder of Giani, beyond a reasonable doubt”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Appeal and upheld the conviction.

Cause Title- Mohd. Nawab v. State NCT of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:9172-DB)

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocates S.K. Sharma, Tejas Singh, Rahul Sharma, Yogender, and Saurabh Dagar.

Respondent: APP Aashneet Singh

Click here to read/download the Judgment