Motive

  1. Motive — absence of — will not affect the prosecution case in presence of ocular evidence — Motive is necessary when the case rests solely on circumstantial evidence. Noor Ahmad  v. The State 1992 SCR 1 (F)
  2. Murder — The mere fact that there was strong motive for murder and the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused may not be sufficient for conviction in a case of murder but the aforesaid facts or any one of the said facts coupled with the recovery of the remains of the dead body of the victim of offence at the instance of the accused-respondent are sufficient to sustain conviction in a murder case. Usman Khalid  v. M. Yunus and another 1996 SCR 197 (D)
  3. Motive is not always material — Because sometimes murders are committed without any motive. Muhammad Ilyas  v. Kabir Hussain and another 2002 SCR 510 (B)
  4. Motive not a sin qua non to bring home the offence of murder, but it has importance regarding quantum of sentence — Where motive is shrouded  in mystery then extreme penalty of death is not awarded and lesser penalty of life imprisonment is awarded. M. Khurshid Khan v. M. Basharat 2007 SCR 1 (R)1983 SCMR 806,1988 P.Cr.L.J. 307,1987 P.Cr. L.J.1689 &1987P.Cr.L.J.1812 rel.
  5. Section 302, APC — Contention that specific motive is alleged by the prosecution but not proved therefore, it is not case of death sentence — Held: the motive plays important role in the cases of circumstantial evidence. The direct evidence which comes from independent and natural sources and rings true then it is not necessary to prove motive. Muhammad Yaqoob v. The State & 2 others 2014 SCR 121 (D) 1977 SCMR 175 and 1997 SCR 206 ref.
  6. The motive plays an important role in the cases of circumstantial evidence. Javaid Akhtar  v. Muhammad Zubair & others 2015 SCR 533 (B)
  7. Murder — circumstantial evidence — motive does not play an important role in the case of direct evidence. motive does not play an important role but in the cases of circumstantial evidence, motive plays an important role — when the motive is alleged it is necessary to prove the same. Abdul Majeed & 4 others v. Muhammad Latif & 3 others 2016 SCR 1306 (B&C) 1992 SCR 1 rel.
  8. murder—in circumstantial evidence—the motive plays important role—the prosecution has to prove the same—in case of direct evidence it not necessary for the prosecution to prove the motive but when the case is based on the circumstantial evidence the motive plays vital role. Rashid Hussain vs The State & another 2018 SCR 260 (D)  1992 SCR 1
  9. It is well settled principle of law that the prosecution is not bound to allege the motive for bringing the guilt to home of the accused but once the motive is set up by the prosecution then it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the same through concrete evidence—–the motive is alleged then it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the same as one of the important chain of the events, which link the convict with the commission of the offence. Muhammad Khalid & nother vs State & another 2018 SCR 356 (B)
  10. —Murder case—-conviction of— motive is always hidden deep in the minds of the assailants —- in the absence of motive, if the case is proved by other evidence, the conviction can be recorded— motive is not a necessary ingredient in a murder case—motive is double-edged weapon which cuts both ways and which way it actually cuts depends upon the peculiar circumstances of a particular case—Held: motive is not an essential element to prove the guilt of an accused. Shahzad & others vs Rana Qamar & others 2018 SCR 727 (I) 2010 SCMR 97, rel
  11. It is well settled principle of law that when motive is alleged but not proved then the ocular evidence required to be scrutinized with great caution. Shahzad & others vs Rana Qamar & others 2018 SCR 727 (J) 2010 SCMR 97 & PLD 1979 SC (AJK) 23 ref
  12. —the motive plays a vital role and one motive is established it is the duty of the prosecution under law to prove the same. Abdul Qayyum & others v. The State & others 2019 SCR 105 (E)
  13. — Prosecution is not bound to set up the motive for proving the murder but it is settled that where motive alleged has not been proved then the maximum punishment for the offence
  14. cannot be awarded to the accused. Asif Hussain v. Muhammad Rafique & another 2019 SCR 632 (A) 2019 SCMR 652 rel
  15. —it is not necessary for the prosecution to allege motive for proving the case but once it is alleged, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the same otherwise it may create doubt in the prosecution story. Mst. Farzand Begum & 9 others v. Dil Muhammad & 3 others 2020 SCR 367 (A)
  16.  —murder case—existence of family dispute alleged in FIR–Fact of relationship with convict mentioned in FIR—counsel for the convict also stated at bar that the son of deceased divorced the sister of the convict-appellant—Held: motive admitted in circumstances—As per prosecution story, the convict and the deceased are relatives to each other and due to a family dispute the convict inflicted him the firearm injuries which resulted into his death. The perusal of the record shows that in the instant case the prosecution has proved the motive by producing the evidence and even during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the convict admitted that 3 to 4 years prior to the occurrence the son of the deceased had divorced the sister of the convict, meaning thereby that the motive is admitted in the case. Iftikhar Khan v. The State & 3 others 2020 SCR 177 (A)
  17.  —motive when not required to be proved by prosecution—principle—under law, the motive plays a vital role in the case of circumstantial evidence and in the case of direct evidence, coming from independent and natural source and the natural witness is one who is not inimical towards the accused to falsely implicate him in the commission of offence, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove the motive.  Muhammad Idress & 2 others v. State through AdvocateGeneral & 11 others  2020 SCR 200 (B)  
  18. —murder of husband by administering poison—statement of convict-appellant before the Civil Court, after murder of her husband—Stating her intention to get married with co-accused— Held: the statement of convict-appellant before Civil Court proves the motive for taking life of her husband. Nusrat Jan  v. The State & another 2020 SCR 630 (B)
  19. —Murder case—the motive though not a sin qua non for bringing the offence of murder at home but it has importance regarding the quantum of sentence. Rafique-ur-Rehman v.        The State 2022 SCR 199 (G) 1983 SCMR 860 ref
  20.  —Murder—conviction of—the allegation and proof of motive are not legal requirement for awarding death or life imprisonment, when the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Syed Kamran Hussainshahv. State & another 2022 SCR 365 (D) 
  21. –Even in case of weak motive—when there has been otherwise strong and reliable evidence, motive would not come in the way of the case of prosecution. Syed Kamran Hussainshahv. State & another 2022 SCR 365 (G)
  22. —Where murder has taken place in presence of eye witnesses, it become needless to say that when there is acceptable evidence of eye witnesses, the question of motive can loom large. Syed Kamran Hussain v. State & another 2022 SCR 365 (F)
  23. —Murder case—motive—it is not necessary for prosecution to allege motive to prove case—once motive is alleged, it is the duty of prosecution to prove the same, otherwise it may create doubts in the prosecution story. Malik Zaffar v. Rashid Hussain Shah & others 2022 SCR 1489 (G)
  24. —Murder case—motive— prosecution not bound to allege motive for bringing guilt to home of accused— if motive is alleged by prosecution then it is the duty of prosecution to prove the same through concrete evidence. Jahangir Khan & others v. Safia Tanveer & others 2022 SCR 1541(Q) 2010 SCMR 97; 2018 SCMR 354; 2020 SCR 367; 2016 SCR 1306 rel.
  25. —Murder case—motive—alleged enmity between parties—double edged sword—Held: the enmity between the parties as alleged by the complainant is a double-edged factor. It can be treated as a reason for commission of offence but at the same time when the incident is unseen, the possibility of false implication of a person on the basis of enmity, cannot be ruled out.  Jahangir Khan & others v. Safia Tanveer & others 2022 SCR 1541(R) 2019 SCMR 652; 2021 YLR 1623 rel.
  26.  — motive plays an important role where the case rests solely on circumstantial evidence — however where the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, it is not the legal requirement to prove motive. Tanvir Ahmed Bhatti v. State & others 2023 SCR 514 (D)
  27. — when motive is alleged in a criminal case, especially, in the case of circumstantial evidence, it must be proved — failure to prove the alleged motive can mitigate the severity of punishment. Ghulam Nabi & others vs Muhammad Shafique 2024 SCR 72 (A) 2007 SCR 1 ref.  
error: Content is protected !!