Rishipal vs. State of Uttarakhand,
Criminal Appeal No. 928 of 2009, Decided on January 8th, 2013
The Supreme Court held that:
“It is fairly well-settled that while motive
does not have a major role to play in cases based on eye-witness account of the
incident, it assumes importance in cases that rest entirely on circumstantial
evidence”. [Para 14]
“Absence of strong motive in the present
case, therefore, is something that cannot be lightly brushed aside.”
On the facts of the case the
Court held:
“It is not the
case of the prosecution that there existed any enmity between Abdul Mabood and
the appellant nor is there any evidence to prove any such enmity. All that was
suggested by learned counsel appearing for the State was that the appellant got
rid of Abdul Mabood by killing him because he intended to take away the car
which the complainant-Dr. Mohd. Alam had given to him. That argument has not
impressed us. If the motive behind the alleged murder was to somehow take away
the car, it was not necessary for the appellant to kill the deceased for the
car could be taken away even without physically harming Abdul Mabood. It was
not as though Abdul Mabood was driving the car and was in control thereof so
that without removing him from the scene it was difficult for the appellant to
succeed in his design”.
The Court noted following case
laws:
Sukhram v. State of Maharashtra
(2007) 7 SCC 502,
Sunil Clifford Daniel (Dr.) v.
State of Punjab (2012) 8 SCALE 670,
Pannayar v. State of Tamil Nadu
by Inspector of Police (2009) 9 SCC 152
To see full
text of judgment follow the link: