Motive in Circumstantial Evidence Cases under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Relevance under Section 6, Absence of Motive and Landmark Judgments

Motive occupies a peculiar position in the law of evidence. It is never an ingredient of an offence, and no prosecution is obliged to establish it. Yet in a case resting wholly on circumstantial evidence it becomes one of the most closely examined circumstances, because it supplies the reason that makes the inference of guilt intelligible. A chain of circumstances pointing at a person who had no conceivable reason to commit the offence is a chain the courts scrutinise with particular care.

1. The Provision

Section 6(1), BSA — Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct

Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact.

Section 6(1) corresponds to the first paragraph of Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act. It makes any fact relevant which shows or constitutes a motive, and it does so without qualification. The provision draws no distinction between civil and criminal proceedings and imposes no requirement that the motive be adequate, proportionate or even rational.

1.1 The Illustrations bearing on motive

Illustration	Facts	Why relevant
(a)	A is tried for the murder of B. It is shown that A had murdered C; that B knew of it; and that B had tried to extort money from A by threatening to make his knowledge public	The facts supply A with a motive to kill B, and are relevant under sub-section (1) although they disclose an entirely separate offence
(b)	A sues B upon a bond for the payment of money. B denies making the bond	That at the time the bond was alleged to have been made B required money for a particular purpose is relevant, as showing a motive for entering into the transaction

⚠ Illustration (a) and the bad character rule

Illustration (a) permits proof that the accused committed a separate murder. That would ordinarily be excluded by Section 49, which makes the previous bad character of an accused irrelevant except in reply. It is admitted here because it is not tendered to show that the accused is the sort of person who kills, but because it is the very thing that gave him a reason to kill this victim. Evidence of a previous offence is admissible under Section 6(1) where it constitutes the motive, and on no other footing.

2. Motive, Intention and Preparation

	Motive	Intention	Preparation
Meaning	The reason that prompted the act	The purpose with which the act was done	The arrangements made to carry the act out
Ingredient of an offence	Never	Frequently — an ingredient of most serious offences	Ordinarily not punishable, being short of an attempt
Relevancy	Section 6(1)	A fact in issue where the substantive law makes it an ingredient; facts showing it are relevant under Section 12	Section 6(1)
Effect of absence	Not fatal, though significant in a circumstantial case	Fatal where it is an ingredient and is not established	Not fatal; many offences require no preparation
How established	By circumstances — enmity, gain, prior disputes, illicit relationships, property	By inference from the act, the weapon, the injuries and the conduct	By acts of acquisition, reconnaissance and arrangement

The distinction between motive and intention is the one most often blurred. A person who kills to relieve the suffering of a terminally ill relative acts from a motive most would call compassionate and with an intention the law calls culpable. The substantive law is concerned with the second. The law of evidence is interested in the first only because it makes the second more credible.

3. The Weight of Motive

3.1 In a case of direct evidence

Where credible eyewitnesses establish the act, motive is of secondary importance and its absence does not weaken the prosecution. The reason a person acted lies in his own mind, and it is frequently impossible for the prosecution to unravel it. A court is not required to identify why a proved act was done before holding that it was done.

📖 Nathuni Yadav v. State of Bihar, (1998) 9 SCC 238

Held: Motive for the commission of an offence is not an indispensable requirement of the prosecution case. Motive is a matter which resides in the mind of the offender, and it is not always possible for the prosecution to unravel it by direct evidence. Where there is clear and reliable direct evidence of the occurrence, the absence of proof of motive does not detract from the prosecution case.

Ratio: Absence of a proved motive is not fatal where the occurrence is otherwise established by direct evidence.

3.2 In a case of circumstantial evidence

The position changes materially. In a circumstantial case the court is being asked to draw an inference, and motive supplies the reason that makes the inference natural. Its presence strengthens the chain; its complete absence weakens it, because the hypothesis that the accused had no reason to act remains open as an alternative explanation.

📖 Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 80

Held: Motive assumes greater importance in a case resting on circumstantial evidence than in a case of direct evidence. Where the case depends on circumstances, motive is a relevant and important circumstance which lends support to the other circumstances and helps in assessing the intention of the accused. Its absence, while not by itself sufficient to displace an otherwise complete chain, is a factor which the court must weigh.

Ratio: Motive is a supporting circumstance in a circumstantial case, and the court must address it expressly.

📖 Pannayar v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2009) 9 SCC 152

Held: In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, motive assumes significance, and the absence of a proved motive is a circumstance which weighs in favour of the accused. Where the prosecution alleges a motive and fails to establish it, that failure tells against the prosecution, since the case was presented on the footing that the motive existed.

Ratio: In a circumstantial case, a motive alleged and not proved is worse than no motive alleged at all.

📖 Anwar Ali v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2020) 10 SCC 166

Held: Absence of motive in a case depending on circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs in favour of the accused. In a case of circumstantial evidence, motive assumes greater importance than in a case of direct evidence, because the absence of any reason for the accused to commit the offence leaves open a hypothesis consistent with innocence. The Court reiterated, however, that absence of motive is not by itself a ground for acquittal where the chain is otherwise complete.

Ratio: The most frequently cited modern statement of the significance of motive in circumstantial cases.

Situation	Effect
Motive alleged and proved	A supporting circumstance which strengthens the chain and explains why the accused acted
Motive alleged and not proved	Tells against the prosecution, which framed its case on a foundation it could not establish
No motive alleged, chain otherwise complete	Not fatal. The prosecution is under no obligation to establish motive
No motive alleged, chain incomplete	The absence of any reason to act reinforces the hypothesis of innocence and supports an acquittal
Motive proved, chain incomplete	Motive alone establishes nothing. Many persons have a reason to commit an offence and do not commit it

4. The Four Settled Propositions

Motive is never an ingredient of an offence. The substantive law asks what the accused did and with what intention, not why. A conviction is not vitiated by the absence of a finding on motive.
Motive by itself proves nothing. It establishes that the accused had a reason to act, not that he acted. It is a link, never a substitute for one.
Inadequacy of motive is immaterial. The law does not weigh the sufficiency of the reason. Grave offences are frequently committed on trivial provocation, and a court does not reject a proved motive because it appears disproportionate to the act.
Motive is double-edged. The same enmity that supplies the accused with a reason to commit the offence supplies the complainant's side with a reason to implicate him falsely. Where the parties are on hostile terms, the court weighs both possibilities.

⚠ The double-edged character of motive

Where longstanding enmity is proved between the accused and the family of the deceased, that enmity operates in two directions at once. It furnishes the accused with a motive to commit the offence, and it furnishes the interested witnesses with a motive to name him whether or not he was involved. Courts have therefore treated proof of enmity as a circumstance calling for closer scrutiny of the eyewitness testimony rather than as a straightforward strengthening of the prosecution case.

5. Proving Motive

Motive is a state of mind, and like every state of mind it is established by inference from external facts. Section 6(1) makes the facts relevant; Section 12 supplements it where the mental state itself is in issue or relevant.

Category of motive	Facts ordinarily led
Pecuniary gain	Insurance policies taken shortly before the death; the accused's position under a will; indebtedness; a disputed loan; the prospect of inheritance
Property and succession	Partition disputes; boundary quarrels; pending civil litigation; mutation entries; encroachment
Enmity and prior quarrels	Earlier assaults; police complaints; prior litigation between the parties; caste or factional disputes
Illicit relationship	Evidence of an association; letters and messages; the conduct of the parties; the reaction of the family
Matrimonial and dowry	Demands made before the death; earlier cruelty; complaints to relatives or to the police; the pattern of harassment
Suppression of an earlier offence	That the deceased knew of an offence committed by the accused and was in a position to disclose it, as in Illustration (a)
Professional or business rivalry	Competing tenders; loss of a contract; disputes over accounts or agency

⚠ A motive must itself be fully established

Motive is a circumstance like any other, and in a circumstantial case it is subject to the first of the five conditions: it must be fully established and not merely shown as possible. A motive resting on the vague assertion of a witness that there was 'ill-feeling' between the parties, without particulars, is not a proved circumstance and cannot operate as a link. Where the motive alleged is a property dispute, the dispute must be established; where it is an illicit relationship, the relationship must be established.

6. Motive within the Five Golden Principles

The assessment of motive in a circumstantial case is not a separate exercise. It is carried out within the framework governing all circumstantial evidence.

📖 Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116

Held: Before a conviction may be based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn must be fully established, and the facts must be established and not merely 'may be' established; the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt; the circumstances must be of a conclusive nature and tendency; they must exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and there must be a chain of evidence so complete as to leave no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with innocence.

Application to motive: Motive is one of the circumstances. It must itself be fully established before it can operate as a link, and its presence does not dispense with any of the remaining conditions.

Condition	Application to motive
Fully established	The facts constituting the motive must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. A suggested or assumed motive is not a circumstance
Consistent only with guilt	The motive must be one that points to this accused. A motive shared by several persons narrows nothing
Conclusive nature and tendency	A motive of a general or speculative kind does not have conclusive tendency
Excludes every hypothesis	Motive rarely does this by itself; its function is to support the circumstances that do
Complete chain	Motive is one link. A chain consisting of motive alone, or of motive and opportunity alone, is incomplete

7. Common Errors in the Use of Motive

Treating a proved motive as proof of the act. The presence of a reason to act says nothing about whether the accused acted. A great many persons have such reasons and do nothing.
Treating the absence of motive as conclusive of innocence. It is a factor in favour of the accused in a circumstantial case, not a ground of acquittal where the chain is otherwise complete.
Alleging a motive that cannot be proved. A motive pleaded and abandoned damages the prosecution, because the case was framed on a footing that failed.
Weighing the adequacy of the motive. The law is indifferent to proportion. A quarrel over a trifle may prompt a killing, and the triviality of the reason is not a ground for rejecting it.
Confusing motive with intention. Motive is not an ingredient and its absence does not affect the ingredients. A finding on intention cannot be displaced by a finding that no motive was shown.
Ignoring the double-edged effect. Where the motive alleged is enmity, the court must consider whether the same enmity supplies a reason for false implication.

8. Related Topics and Provisions

Topic or provision	Connection
Circumstantial Evidence — Meaning, Nature and Principles	The framework within which motive is assessed
Motive, Preparation and Conduct — Section 6	The section-wise treatment of the provision
Conduct of the Accused as Circumstantial Evidence	Conduct before and after the offence, admitted under Section 6(2)
Recovery as Circumstantial Evidence	The discovery circumstance under the proviso to Section 23(2)
Last Seen Theory	The circumstance of association, which motive frequently supports
State of Mind, State of Body and Bodily Feeling — Section 12	Proof of intention, knowledge and ill-will
Section 49, BSA	Previous bad character of an accused, and the exception where the earlier offence constitutes the motive