SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd. Page 25 Monday, October 24, 2022 Printed For: Navami Krishnamurthy, Jindal Global University SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MOTIVE 87. The Courts below have relied upon the strong motive for the accused appellant to commit the crime as one of the incriminating circumstances. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused appellant desperately wanted to get married to Manju. Manju herself at the relevant point of time was a married lady. It appears from the evidence on record that the accused appellant had even got engaged with Manju during the subsistence of his marriage with the deceased Sangeeta. It also appears that the engagement ceremony was celebrated with pomp and show. However, before the accused appellant could get married to Manju, he got arrested in one offence under Section 307 of the IPC. According to the prosecution thereafter, although the accused appellant tried his best to get married to Manju, more particularly, after being released on bail yet as there was lot of opposition at the end of his wife deceased Sangeeta, he was not able to marry her. In such circumstances, it is the case of the prosecution that the accused appellant decided to terminate his wife Sangeeta as well his four minor daughters on the fateful night of the incident. 88. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive for committing the crime on the part of the accused assumes greater importance. This Court in various decisions has laid down the principles holding that motive for commission of offence no doubt assumes greater importance in cases resting on circumstantial evidence than those in which direct evidence regarding commission of offence is available. It is equally true that failure to prove motive in cases resting on circumstantial evidence is not fatal by itself. However, it is also well settled and it is trite in law that absence of motive could be a missing link of incriminating circumstances, but once the prosecution has established the other incriminating circumstances to its entirety, absence of motive will not give any benefit to the accused. 89. Having regard to the nature of the evidence on record, there is something to indicate that the accused appellant had illicit relationship with Manju and wanted to settle in life marrying Manju. As noted above, in the past accused appellant had got engaged with Manju and was on the verge of getting married. At the relevant point of time when the accused appellant got engaged with Manju, it appears that one and all including the deceased Sangeeta were consenting parties. There is nothing on record to indicate that at the time of engagement of accused appellant with Manju, the deceased Sangeeta had raised hue and cry or had opposed such decision of her husband. Of course, this is something which is very personal. If at all we believe the illicit relationship of the accused appellant with Manju, then it is possible that the deceased Sangeeta might be an absolutely helpless lady and could not have done anything in that regard. However, the moot question is should this motive by alone be held sufficient to convict the accused appellant for the alleged crime and sentence him to death. 90. In the case of Sampath Kumar v. Inspector of Police Krishnagiri, (2012) 4 SCC 124, decided on 02.03.2012, this Court held as under: “29. In N.J. Suraj v. State [(2004) 11 SCC 346 : 2004 Supp SCC (Cri) 85] the prosecution case was based entirely upon circumstantial evidence and a motive. Having discussed the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, this Court rejected the motive which was the only remaining circumstance relied upon by the prosecution stating that the presence of a motive was not enough for supporting a conviction, for it is well settled that the chain of circumstances should be such as to lead to an irresistible conclusion, that is incompatible with the innocence of the accused. 30. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in Santosh Kumar Singh v. State [(2010) 9 SCC 747 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1469] and Rukia Begum v. State of