Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.32 seconds)
Jagdish Vaidya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 March, 2017 cites

State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Moti Ram And Anr. Etc. Etc on 2 May, 1990

"5...........The Courts below have concurrently held that the motive suggested by the prosecution against the accused persons is established. When there is sufficient direct evidence regarding the commission of the offence, the question of motive will not loom large in the mind of the court. It is true that this Court has held in State of U.P. Vs. Moti Ram [(1990) 4 SCC 389] that in a case where the prosecution party and the accused party were in animosity on account of series of incidents over a considerable length of time, the motive is a double-edged weapon and the key question for consideration is whether the prosecution had convincingly and satisfactorily established the guilt of all or any of the accused beyond reasonable doubt by letting in reliable and cogent evidence. Very often, a motive is alleged to indicate the high degree of probability that the offence was committed by the person who was prompted by the motive. In our opinion, in a case when motive alleged against the accused is fully established, it provides a foundational material to connect the chain of circumstances. We hold that if motive is proved or established, it affords a key or pointer, to scan the evidence in the case, in that perspective and as a satisfactory circumstance of corroboration. It is a very relevant, and important aspect - (a) to highlight the intention of the accused and (b) the approach to be made in appreciating the totality of the circumstances including the evidence disclosed in the case. The relevance of motive and the importance or value to be given to it are tersely stated by Shamsul Hauda in delivering the Tagore Law Lectures (1902) - The Principles of the Law of Crimes in British India at page 176, as follows :
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 48 - S R Pandian - Full Document
1   2 Next