• 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:


    http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=39974