Motive Insignificant When Direct Evidence In Form Of Dying Declaration Exists : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday (January 15) restored the conviction of a man for committing murder of her wife, observing that absence of motive is not fatal to the prosecution when there is clear and credible direct evidence, such as a dying declaration.

“Motive assumes significance, primarily in cases based on circumstantial evidence. Where there is direct evidence in the form of a credible and trustworthy dying declaration, the absence of strong proof of motive is not fatal to the prosecution case.”, observed a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan, while setting aside the Himachal Pradesh High Court's decision which, while acquitting accused in 2014, had questioned the prosecution case on the ground that motive was not established.

It was the prosecution's case that the Respondent No.1, husband had set ablaze her wife leading to her death. The wife has recorded the dying declaration in the presence of the executive magistrate, taking name of his husband, accusing him for setting her ablaze.

The High Court overturned the trial court's decision convicting him of murder, reasoning that the absence of any pending litigation between the spouses showed a lack of animosity and that the prosecution had failed to explain why the accused would commit such a grave act.

Disagreeing with the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Mahadevan observed that proving a motive wouldn't be necessary when there's a direct evidence proving the crime. Since the deceased's dying declaration was consistent, making it direct evidence against the Respondent No.2, the Court held that proving motive became insignificant.

“In the present case, the evidence on record discloses that the respondent subjected the deceased to frequent quarrels, humiliation and verbal abuse, including branding her a “Kanjri” and repeatedly asking her to leave the matrimonial home. The dying declaration itself refers to persistent matrimonial discord and ill-treatment thereby furnishing a plausible background for the commission of the offence. In any event, the prosecution is not required to establish motive with mathematical precision and failure to conclusively prove motive does not weaken an otherwise reliable and cogent case.”, the court said.

“We are, therefore, of the considered view that the High Court fell into manifest error in reversing the well-reasoned judgment of conviction recorded by the trial Court by re-appreciating the evidence in a manner contrary to the settled principles governing appellate interference.”, the court held.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, ordering the Respondent No.1, husband, to surrender and undergo the remaining sentence.

Cause Title: STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VERSUS CHAMAN LAL

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 48

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Abhishek Gautam, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Krishna Pal Singh, AOR (Amicus Curiae) Ms. Anvita Aprajita, Adv. Mr. Mohan Singh Bais, Adv. Mr. Seemab Qayyum, Adv.