The Supreme
Court in a recently decided case of “Munish Mubar vs State Of Haryana”, [CRIMINAL
APPEAL NO. 294 of 2010] has held that:
“In a case of circumstantial evidence, motive assumes great
significance and importance, for the reason that the absence of motive would
put the court on its guard and cause it to scrutinize each piece of evidence
very closely in order to ensure that suspicion, emotion or conjecture do not
take the place of proof. However, the evidence regarding existence of motive
which operates in the mind of an assassin is very often, not within the reach
of others. The said motive may not even be known to the victim of the crime.
The motive may be known to the assassin and no one else may know what gave
birth to such evil thought, in the mind of the assassin. In a case of
circumstantial evidence, the evidence indicating the guilt of the accused
becomes untrustworthy and unreliable, because most often it is only the
perpetrator of the crime alone, who has knowledge 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 suggest sufficient/necessary
motive to commit a crime, it may be conceived that the accused has committed
the same.” [Para 22]
See full
judgement: