Rohtash Kumar vs. State of Haryana, Criminal
Appeal No. 896 of 2011, Decided on May 29, 2013
“The evidence
regarding the existence of a motive which operates in the mind of the accused
is very often very limited, and may not be within the reach of others. The
motive driving the accused to commit an offence may be known only to him and to
no other. In a case of circumstantial evidence, motive may be a very relevant
factor. However, it is the perpetrator of the crime alone who is aware of the circumstances
that prompted him to adopt a certain course of action, leading to the
commission of the crime. Therefore, if the evidence on record suggests
adequately, the existence of the necessary motive required to commit a crime,
it may be conceived that the accused has in fact, committed the same”. [Para
21]
The Court referred following case
laws:
Subedar Tewari v. State of
U.P. & Ors., AIR 1989
SC 733
Suresh Chandra Bahri v.
State of Bihar, AIR 1994
SC 2420
Dr. Sunil Clifford Daniel v.
State of Punjab, (2012) 11
SCC 205
To see full
text follow the link:
http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=40444