What is meant by motive? When it becomes
Section 8 runs as follows:
"Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact.
The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or proceeding, in reference to such suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person an offense against whom is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto.
The word “conduct” in this section does not include statements unless those statements accompany and explain acts other than statements; but this explanation is not to affect the relevancy of statements under any other section of this Act.
Explanation 2. –
When the conduct of any person is relevant, any statement made to him or in his presence and hearing, which affects such conduct, is relevant.
(a) A is tried for the murder of B.
The facts that, A murdered C, that B knew that A had murdered C, and that B had tried to extort money from A by threatening to make his knowledge public, are relevant.
(b) A sues B upon a bond for payment of money. B denies the making of the bond.
The fact that, at the time when the bond was alleged to be made, B required money for a particular purpose, it relevant.
(c) A is tried for the murder of B by poison.
The fact that, before the death of B, A procured poison similar to that which was administered to B, is relevant.
(d) The question is, whether a certain document is the will of A.
The facts that not long before the date of the alleged will A made inquiry into matters to which the provisions of the alleged will relate that he consulted vakils in reference to making the will, and that he caused drafts or other wills to be prepared of which he did not approve, are relevant.
(e) A is accused of a crime.
The facts, either before or at the time of, or after the alleged crime, A provided evidence which would tend to give to the facts of the case an appearance favorable to himself, on that he destroyed or concealed evidence, or prevented the presence or procured the absence of persons who might have been witnesses, or suborned persons to give false evidence respecting it, are relevant.
(f) The question is, whether A robbed B.
The facts that, after B was robbed, C said in A’s presence – “the police are coming to look for the man who robbed B” and that immediately afterwards A ran away, are relevant.
(g) The question is, whether A owes B rupees 10,000.
The fact that, A asked C to lend him money, and that D said to C in A’s presence and hearing “Advice you The Orient Tavern to trust A, for he owes B 10,000 rupees” and that A went away without making any answer, are relevant facts.
(h) The question is, whether A committed a crime.
The facts that, A absconded after receiving a litter warning him that inquiry was being made for the criminal, and the contents of the letter, are relevant.
(i) A is accused of a crime.
The facts that, after the commission of the alleged crime, he absconded or was in possession of property or the proceeds of property acquired by the crime, or attempted to conceal things which were or might have been used in committing it, are relevant.
(j) The question is whether A was ravished.
The facts that, shortly after the alleged rape, she made a complaint relating to the crime, the circumstances under which, and the terms in which the complaint was made, are relevant.
The facts that, without making a complaint, she said that she had been ravished is not relevant as conduct under this section, though it may be relevant as a dying declaration under section 32, clause 1, or as corroborative evidence under section 157.
(k) The question is whether A was robbed.
The fact that, soon after the alleged robbery, he made a complaint, relating to the offence, the circumstances under which, and the terms in which the complaint was made, are relevant.
The fact that he said he had been robbed without making any complaint, is not relevant, as conduct under this section, though it may be relevant as a dying declaration under section 32, clause 1, or as corroborative evidence under section 157.
The word 'motive' means “the reason behind the act or conduct or an act to be achieved in doing an act."
Salmond describes motive as " the ulterior intent". It may be good or bad.
Motive is the moving power, which impels one to do an act. In other words, a motive is that which moves a man to do a particular act. It is an emotion or State of Mind, which leads a man to do an act. Motive by itself is no crime, however heinous it may be. Once a crime has been committed, the evidence of motive becomes important. Therefore, evidence of the existence of a motive for the crime charged is Admissible.
Motive differs from intention. Intention refers to immediate consequences, whereas, motive refers to ultimate purpose with which an act is done. An act may be done with bad intention but good motive.
A thief steals money and helps the poor.
Proof of Motive:
Motive cannot always shown directly. It has to be inferred from the facts and circumstantial in evidence.
E.g.: A is tried for murder of B, The fact that B was present at the scene of the offence, while A was murdering C, B tried to extort money from A, by threatening him to reveal in the public that A murdered C are relevant.
Importance of Evidence of motive:
Motive is a relevant factor in all criminal cases, whether based on the testimony of eye witnesses or circumstantial evidence. Motive alone is not sufficient evidence to establish that the crime in question has been committed by a particular person. Where a crime is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, it is not necessary to consider the evidence of motive. Inadequacy of motive does not affect the cogent evidence but is important, whether evidence is doubtful.
Relevant Case Law:
It has been held in Udaipal Singh vs. State, AIR1972 SC 54, that Evidence of motive is relevant under section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Supreme Court also held in Kundula Bala vs. State 1993, Court held that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive assumes a great significance as its Evidence in an enlightening factor in a process of presumptive reasoning.
In State of M.P. Vs. Dhiredra Kumar AIR 1997 SC 318, Munnibai was killed. Respondent Dhiredra Kumar had en evil eye on her. Respondent was tenant in the house of father-in-law of deceased (Munnibai) Munnibai reported the matter to her mother in law who in turn told to her husband; who told vacate the house. This may be taken as motive of murder.
In State of Haryana v. Sher Singh.AIR 1981 SC 1021, held that if the prosecution proves motive, Court has to consider it and see whether it is adequate.
When there is direct evidence, the evidence of motive is not of so much significance. The evidence of
Motive becomes important to Corroborate the circumstantial evidence in Sakharam v. State AIR 1992 SC 758, held, that absence of Motive may not be relevant when Evidence is overwhelming but it is a plus point in case where the Evidence against the accused is only Circumstantial.
Section 8, Para I of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 says, “Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact."
Preparation consists in arranging the means necessary for the commission of a crime. Every crime is necessarily preceded by preparation.
"A is tried for the murder of B, by poison. The fact that, before the death of B, A produced poison similar to that which was administered to B is relevant."
The fact that a day prior to the murder of B, A went to the druggist shop and obtained a particular poison, is relevant to show that he made necessary preparation for committing the crime.
There are four stages in Commission of Crime
4) Accomplishment / complete act.
The first, intention is not punishable. The second stage in commission of a crime is preparation, is punishable in certain cases. The third stage attempt is exempted from criminal liability in rare cases in respect of minor offences. Preparation in devising or arranging means necessary for commission of an offence.Mohanlal vs Emperor, AIR 1937, Sindh 293.
In this case, the accused was charged with cheating for importing goods without paying proper custom duty by deceiving customs authorities. The evidence of his previous visit to the port trying to make certain arrangements whereby he could import goods without paying duty was held Admissible under the Section.The preparation on the part of the accused may be, to accomplish the crime, to prevent discovery of crime or it may be to aid the escape of the criminal and avert suspicion.
The conduct is the expression in outward behavior of the quality or conduct operating to produce those effects.
The second paragraph of Section 8 deals with the relevancy of conduct it says that , " The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or proceeding, in reference to such suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person an offense against whom is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto."
Conduct is differ from the character. Conduct is what a person is in the estimation of others.
Paragraph 2 of Section 8 deals with the relevancy of the conduct of the following persons
1) Parties to the suit and of their agents.
2) Person, an offense against whom is the subject of a proceeding.
Against whom admissible :
The conduct of any person, is relevant under section 8, is admissible only against himself and not against any other person. The conduct of an accused is not, therefore, Admissible, against a co-accused.
Conditions of admissibility:
The conduct is admissible only if the following conditions are satisfied:
1) It must be in reference to the suit or proceeding or in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto.
2) It must directly influence or be influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact.
The conduct remains inadmissible if any one of the other two conditions is not satisfied.
In Nagesha V. State of Bihar, AIR, 1996 SC119, it was held by the Court if the first information is given by the accused himself, the fact of his giving information is admissible against him as an evidence of his conduct.