Sie sind auf Seite 1von 16


Dr.Shakuntala Misra National Rehabilitation

University, Lucknow


Rule Of Motive In Criminal law

SUNIL KUMAR vs. STATE OF U.P. (Criminal Appeal No.1241 of 2003)


Dr. Girjesh Shukla Sir Himanshu Raja
Faculty of Law Roll No 25
2016/2017 Criminal Law: -II
IV Semester

1|P a g e

Annexure A Front-page and Cover


--------------------Rule of Motive In Criminal law------------------
SUNIL KUMAR vs. STATE OF U.P. (Criminal Appeal No.1241 of 2003)

Submitted by

Himanshu Raja

B.COM L.L.B (Hons.) 4 Th Semester

Roll No25


Faculty of Law

Dr. Shakuntala Misra National Rehabilitation University, Lucknow


April, 2017

Under the guidance of

Dr. Grijesh Shukla

Faculty of Law

2|P a g e

Annexure B Certificate


The project entitled Rule Of Motive In Criminal law SUNIL KUMAR vs.
STATE OF U.P. (Criminal Appeal No.1241 of 2003) submitted to the
Faculty of Law, Dr. Shakuntala Misra National Rehabilitation
University, Lucknow for Law of Crimes-II, as part of Internal
assessment, is based on my original work carried out under the
guidance of Dr. Grijesh Shukla Sir.

The research work has not been submitted elsewhere for award of
any degree. The material borrowed from other sources and
incorporated in the thesis has been duly acknowledged. I understand
that I myself could be held responsible and accountable for
plagiarism, if any, detected later on.

Himanshu Raja
Signature of the candidate

3|P a g e


I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my teacher

Dr. Grijesh Shukla as well as our Head of Department Mrs. Shephali
Yadav who gave me the golden opportunity to do this wonderful
project on the topic Rule Of Motive In Criminal law SUNIL KUMAR vs. STATE
OF U.P. (Criminal Appeal No.1241 of 2003) , which also helped me in doing

a lot of Research and i came to know about so many new things I am

really thankful to them.

Secondly I would also like to thank my parents

and friends who helped me a lot in finalizing this project within the
limited time frame.

4|P a g e

Table of Contents

Annexure A...Page.2

Annexure B....Page.3

Acknowledgement .............................Page.4

Table of Contents ....Page.5

ABSTRACT, INTRODUCTION .....................................................................Page.6

INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................Page7


CASE ..Page.11-14



5|P a g e


Motive plays an important role in criminal law. It is necessary to

prove liability for some offenses; it is a key component of several
defenses; and it has been a traditional consideration at sentencing.
Motives role in criminal punishment has grown through the
adoption of hate crime sentencing enhancements and the rise of
substantive sentencing law. And motive has an important role in
punishment theory, as it reinforces the centrality of shared moral
judgments, which are indispensable to any system of criminal law.
Yet despite motives increasing importance in criminal law, its
treatment is icons intent and incomplete. This Article proposes an
expanded role for motive in criminal punishment, in which a
defendants motive for committing any crime may result in a
sentencing increase or decrease. The proposed sentencing system
not only will result in a greater correlation between a defendants
punishment and her individual blameworthiness, but also will
increase sentencing uniformity, because it clarifies the aggravating
and mitigating nature of various motives ex ante.

6|P a g e


1Everyone who watches Law & Order knows (or thinks they know)
that motive is very important in criminal justice. However, as any
first year law student will tell you, motive is irrelevant in determining
criminal liability. Unlike in the television show, which places great
emphasis on a defendants reasons for committing a crime, in the
perceived real world of criminal liability, motive is just a bit player,
appearing only in limited circumstances, usually as a consideration in
certain defenses. Ordinarily, the only real questions at trial are

(1) Did the defendant commit the illegal act and

(2) Did she have the necessary mental state? The defendants mental
state is relevant only to determine if she acted with mens readid
she act purposefully, knowingly, recklessly, et cetera. Evidence of a
defendants motive may be introduced at trial to convince a jury that
she is guilty, but motive is not perceived as a legal component of guilt.

Climenko Fellow and Lecturer on Law, Harvard Law School; B.A. 1999, Columbia
University; J.D. 2002, Yale Law School. I thank Steve Duke, Jack Goldsmith, Andy Hessick, Andrew
Kent, Adriaan Lanni, Dan Meltzer

7|P a g e


The classic inquiries at a criminal trial are whether the defendant

committed the forbidden act and whether she had the necessary
state of mind. For example, to convict a defendant for stealing a
bicycle, the prosecutor must prove both that the defendant intended
to steal the bicycle, and that she actually stole it. If the defendant took
someone else does bicycle believe that it was her own, then she did
not have the necessary mental state and is therefore not guilty of
theft. And if the defendant wanted to steal someone elses bicycle, but
mistakenly took her own bicycle, then she is not guilty of theft
because she did not commit the illegal act.2


Intention and motive are often confused as being one and then some.
The two whoever, are distinct and have to be distinguished. The
mental elements of a crime ordinarily involves no reference to
motive a bad motive cannot be an excuse acquitting him. A person
may act form laudable motive, but if intention causes wrongful loss,
his crime is complete irrespective of his motive.3 Intention has been
defined as the fixed direction of the mind to a particular object, or
determination to act in a particular manner and it is distinguishable
from motive that incites or stimulates action.4

She may, however, be gu ilty of attempted theft
See hari singh gour, the penal law of india. Vol 1, 11th edn, law publisher Allahabad ,1998 p 232
S Raghubir singh sandhuwala v. commr of it AIR 1958 punj 250

8|P a g e

Identifying an Offenders Motives

The literature discussing motives in criminal punishment has

identified three practical concerns with identifying a defendants
motives: first, that the evidence necessary to prove motive may be
difficult to locate; second, that a defendant may have many different
levels of motive; and third, that a defendant may act with mixed

Evidence of Motives
The evidentiary concern is essentially as follows: because motive is a
subjective, internal issue, it will be difficult to determine; and
although intent is also subjective, it is easier to determine than
motive because the evidence of an offenders mens rea will often be
the same evidence that is used to establish the actus Reus.5

See Gardner, supra note 58, at 68689 (Actual motives are often hidden . . . . Serious
attention to motivational analysis would require trial courts to consider detailed case histories of each
defendant. . . . Many of these problems are avoi ded if inquiries into motives are abandoned and
rea offense elements are defined in terms of specifi c states of mind, as in the Model Penal Code
scheme. ). See also Adam Candeub, Comment, Motive Crimes and Other Minds, 142 U. P A. L. R
2071, 2087 (1994) (We are . . . inexorably led to th e notion that whatever can be said about mental
states must be inferred from behavior.)

9|P a g e

Levels of Motives

Once a defendants reasons for acting have been identified, a question

may arise about the relevant level of generality for identifying her
motive. 239 Having asked why a sufficient number of times, the
individual whose motives seemed entirely good and humanitarian
are revealed as acting for selfish reasons.6

Mixed Motives
The issue of mixed motives is perhaps the most pressing issue to
resolve in identification of motives. Because people often act with
more than one motive, 241 any substantial role for motive in
punishment must be able to contend with multiple motives7

There are, in the forest fire hypothetical, any numb er of levels of purpose: to set fire to the
field, to save the town, to serve humanitarian ends, and to make oneself feel like a good
person. In each case the motive of the actor at one level of inquiry becomes the purpose or
real purpose or greater purpose at the next level of inquiry.
As Hurd and Moore explain, the determination of someones motives for action requires one
to determine the nature and the relative weight of an inevitably complex set of motivational desires,
emotions, and dispositional beliefs and to assess the overall merit of their combination. Hurd &
Moore, supra note 3, at 1132. See also Hitchler, supra note 14, at 11516 (discussing complex
motivesthat is, mixed motives). Cf. 2 ROBINSON, supra note 40, 122(b)(2), at 17 (Must the
justificatory purpose be the actors only purpose? A primary purpose? A necessary purpose, in the
that the actor would not have engaged in the conduct but for the justifying interests? Can the
justificatory purpose be entirely secondary and tangential, although real?).

10|P a g e


Sunil Kumar VS. State of U.P.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1242 OF

2003 8

Fact: -

This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of

Judicature of Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1241 of 2003 dated
06.01.2010. The appellant was convicted by the SUPREME COURT OF
1242 of 2003 This Petition was called on for judgment under Section
304 II of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for 4 years Sunil Jageshwar Tilak Singh Ram Singh and
munna formed constitutes an unlawful assembly by tot common
object store of Salim Salim with come on around 5:00 pm the accused
person was working on your store come and Salim started to ask
whether you consider yourself a great punk and was then debated in
both her dirty languages started talking dirty language all accused
Salim disaster relief projects Forbidden by the Blackjack name for all
the accused started hitting from and Salim rushed on the spot and the
other fallen person accused fled after being manhandled by seeing
them on her head because of injury were taken to the hospital and
the nearest Salim Salim's father Hamid Khan police station at 5:30 in
the case filed aura. Injured and contused wounds on her body, Salim
ks were found six injuries were sent for medical examination. Salim
was unconscious, and, therefore, not all injuries can be mentioned.
Salim then next day i.e. 24.02.1982 Medical College, where he
breathed his last of ks 7. Was transferred to Kanpur for the
treatment. Police station, death information for format Nagar, Kanpur
was sent a check of her body had been prepared. The pictures were
taken and sent for examination after death. Salim hardly was 22
years old. Post-mortem examination found three injuries on his head
and it was found that they both left ear right ear to a linear fracture of
the parietal bone was Hematoma suffered brain and doctors had
been found death by blunt weapons by a coma because of head
injuries was caused as a result of.

January 6, 2010

11|P a g e

1. Whether they also liable for 302 yes or not


The Indian Penal Code section 147 for rioting against every Member
of the criminal law section 149 deposits to facilitate general objective
is guilty of an offence and made in section 304 of the Act if the
working potential with the knowledge of death but death or physical
chest so that death is a potential to karit be without intention, he
shall either adopt or punished by fines To be done.

We think the accused under section 304 of the Indian Penal Code
were charged how crime it was absolutely wrong for them under
section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was meant to impute these
people under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for murder, but
not penalties under section 304 of the IPC so killing them in the right
order of the resulting criminal penalties for human slaughter Found

Application/Analysis: -

12|P a g e


It is also in this case lastly, it was stated by the learned senior

Counsel that the offence would not be under Section 304 Part II, IPC.
At the most it could be under Section 325 or 326, IPC. We do not
think that we can accept this argument. In fact, seeing the seriousness
of the wounds, injuries on the head including the fracture on the
head, we wonder as to how the accused were charged of the offence
under Section 304, IPC. It was absolutely incorrect. They should have
been charged under Section 302, IPC. However, in the absence of the
appeal by the State, we would not be in a position to do anything in
that behalf. Learned Counsel also suggested that considering that this
incident had taken place in the year 1982 and sentence of four years
would be harsh punishment. We do not think so. In fact, the
punishment is on the lenient side. After all, one young life was lost at
the young age of 22 years. While considering the sentence, merely
because the appeal pended and merely because the incident had
taken place long back would not by itself justify any interference with
the punishment, particularly, when the punishment itself is a lenient
one. In fact, all the witnesses have unanimously stated about the shop
being there and the deceased being assaulted. Much of the cross-
examination was redundant of this witness as also the other
witnesses. Same is the story of evidence regarding Mohd. Ilyas @
Naushe(PW-2). There appears to be some cross-examination as
regards the identification particularly of Mohd. Ilyas @ Naushe.
However, this witness had actually identified all these accused
persons since they all knew the deceased as also the accused persons.

Now coming to the issue of conviction and sentence awarded under

Section 304 Part II of IPC to the appellant, though arguments were
advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant for its conversion
under Section 323/325 of IPC or in the alternative to reduce the
quantum of sentence to the extent of appellant already undergone i.e.
three years, we are not inclined to accept the submission of learned
counsel even on this issue.

13|P a g e

It is also in this related case lastly 9Jagtar Singh vs. State of Haryana
All members of the family property of the ancients the partition and
all people were their respective parts, jagtar Singh of part was much
and when Surendra Singh, jagtar Singh, the accused tried to intervene
by holding down on the ground, his beard and stabbed three to four
times on his head which was faint and surender Singh Amar Singh
and his cousin try to catch up; Of which ran and surrender the
accused took the hospital some time later surender Singh died of
Amar Singh and his cousin charges filed

June 19, 2015

14|P a g e

Conclusion: -

The Trial Court firstly, contending that there was absolutely no

reason for the accused persons to assault the deceased and no motive
has been attributed to all these accused persons. We are not
impressed by this submission since motive in a criminal case is
irrelevant where evidence of the eye-witnesses is available. In this
case, there were as many as three eyewitnesses one of whom was the
father of the deceased. Therefore, the question of absence of motive
would have no importance whatsoever.

15|P a g e


1. PSA Pillai , Criminal Law , 12th Edition , Lexis Nexis

2. Gaur KD, Criminal Law : Cases and Materials, 2013, 6th Edition, Lexis Nexis

Sites/ Links




16|P a g e