The Supreme Court, while acquitting a person sentenced to life imprisonment in a murder case, said that absolute lack of motive takes on a different colour and certainly goes in favour of the accused.
Justice U.U.Lalit, Justice S.R.Bhat and Justice P.S.Narsimha's bench also observed that it does not mean that the prosecution case should be dismissed for want of motive.
The bench set aside the order passed by the Chhattisgarh High court. The order of the trial court to convict and award life imprisonment in the case was challenged by the accused in the High Court, but his plea was rejected. The High Court order was challenged in the Supreme Court.
The bench, in its decision, said that it is not that the motive of the accused alone is an important link which the prosecution has to prove. In his absence the prosecution case can not be dismissed, but at the same time the complete lack of motive gives a new look to the case and its absence certainly goes in favour of the accused.
According to the prosecution matter,a FiR was registered by a person that his son was missing since January 13,1997.Subsquently, the body of the person's son was found from a pond and the case was changed to Section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal code.
The Supreme Court in its decision said that the petitioner was arrested in the case and it is said that on the basis of his statement several evidences emerged. the Counsel for the appellant had told the supreme court that the case was based on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution had not stated any motive of appellant behind the murder.
The court observed that the statement of a prosecution witnesses was that the deceased was last seen with the appellant. The Apex court held that there was no doubt against the appellant even after the disappearance of the deceased. And his name come to the fore when the FIR was changed to Section 302 of the Indian Penal code.
The Apex court said that the evidence on record do not form a whole to dispel any presumption of innocence of the appellant. The prosecution has failed to establish the chain of events through clear, convincing and coherent evidence on the basis of which the guilt of the appellant can be established.
