 The circumstantial evidence

it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court
can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague
conjectures from sure conclusions.”

 Motive
Sec 8, Indian Evidence Act stipulates that any fact is relevant which shows
or constitutes motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact. It is
further pertinent to note that if there is motive in doing an act, then the
adequacy of that motive is not in all cases necessary. Heinous offences have
been committed for very slight motive.1

The Supreme Court has held that mens rea is an essential ingredient of a
criminal offence. In a criminal court one often wants to test the alleged
guilty mind by seeing what was the motive of the alleged criminal in doing
the particular act. It is not essential under IPC for prosecution to establish
motive. But as a matter of common sense, this is usually of importance,
because an average man does not commit a criminal offence unless he has a
strong motive for doing it. The absence of proof of motive has this effect
only, that the other evidence bearing guilt of the accused has to be very
closely examined. The motive behind the crime is a very relevant fact of
which evidence can be given. The absence of motive is also a circumstance
which is relevant for assessing the evidence. The circumstances which prove
the guilt of the accused are, however, not weakened by the fact that motive
has not been established. Where the positive evidence against the accused is
clear, cogent and reliable, the question of motive is of no importance.
Assuming for the sake of argument that the accused had no motive, it is
humblycontended that absence of motive is no ground for dismissing the
case. Motive is immaterial so far as the offence is concerned, and need not
be established as the mere existence of motive is by itself, not a
incriminating circumstance and cannot take the place of a proof. Therefore,
absence of proof of motive, does not break the link in the chain of
circumstances connecting the accused with the crime, nor militates against
the prosecution case and is not fatal as a matter of law. When the
1
State v. Dinakar Bandu (1969) 72 Bom LR 905
 circumstantial evidence on record is sufficient to prove beyond any doubt to
prove that it was the accused and no one else, who intentionally caused the
death of the accused then, motive of the crime need not be proved. The
criminal jurisprudence as has developed in the basis of the British model is
that the offence alleged is required to be proved „beyond all reasonable
doubt”. What is to be noted is that the doubt, which is required to be
removed, is of a reasonable man and not every kind of doubt based on
surmise or guess. “Reasonable doubt”, therefore, does not mean a vague,
speculative or whimsical doubt or uncertainty, nor a mere possible doubt of
the truth of the fact to be proved. It also does not mean proof of a
mathematical certainty nor proof beyond the possibility of a mistake. The
requirement in criminal cases, of proof “beyond reasonable doubt” to
support conviction, therefore does not mean proof beyond all possible
doubts. 2 Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest fro
abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any favorite other than the truth. To
constitute reasonable doubt, it must be free from an over emotional response.
Doubts must be actual and substantial doubts as to the guilt of the accused
person arising from the evidence or from the lack of it, as opposed to mere
vague apprehension. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or
merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and
commonsense.3 Exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt must
not nurture fanciful doubts or lingering suspicions and thereby destroy social
defense. Justice cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is better to le
hundred guilty escape than punish an innocent. Letting the guilty escape is
not justice, according to law.4

Rekha Sharma and Ors. vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (05.03.2015

- DELHC) : MANU/DE/0632/2015
Call records demonstrating that A-5 was in touch with A-3 during the
time the conspiracy to replace the lists was in motion and

2
State of MP v. Rammi, 1999 (1) JLJ 49 (MP).
3
State of MP v. Dharkale, AIR 2005 SC 44
4
State of WB v. Orilal Jaiswal, AIR 1994 SC 1418