Can motive alone sustain a conviction under Section 302 IPC where no reliable evidence connects the accused?

Paragraph 14Though the motive aspect has been spoken to by the witnesses including P.W.9, who has also spoken about the motive for the occurrence, the fact remains that the motive is always a double edged weapon. It can be used either to fix any person or to prove the guilt of the accused. Therefore, the motive is a double edged weapon. Merely on the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2026 05:57:52 pm ) basis of the alleged motive, the prosecution cannot succeed in proving the specific charge of assault and killing of the deceased. It is further to be noted that though it is stated that immediately after the occurrence, the deceased was taken to the hospital in an ambulance, there is no evidence with regard to the fact that who are all accompanied the deceased to the hospital. The accident register which was prepared when the deceased was taken to Omalur Government hospital, has not seen the light of the day. The prosecution has not even collected the copy of the accident register and has not examined the doctor who first examined the deceased. If the copy of the accident register issued in the Omalur Government Hospital has been produced, it could have thrown some light about the persons who accompanied the deceased and who brought the deceased to the hospital. The prosecution has miserably failed to establish this aspect.

Paragraph 18The above narratives creates serious doubt and suspicion about the prosecution case. Further, the eyewitnesses are interested witnesses who have already motive against the accused and therefore, there is a possibility for them implicating the entire family members of the accused by giving minute details and the same also cannot be ruled out. Further, there is no source of light available at the place of occurrence at the time https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2026 05:57:52 pm ) when the occurrence took place. It is the specific case of the prosecution that only through the light from the motor cycles, the witnesses have seen the accused, but the presence of the motor cycles at the given point of time has not been established. It is not the case of the witnesses that they have gone to the hospital in the said motor cycles. But it is the case of P.Ws.1,2 and 6 that the dead body of the deceased and the P.W.1 were taken to the hospital in an ambulance. In such a case, the motor cycles should have been available in the occurrence spot. But even when the observation mahazar and rough sketch were prepared by the investigating officer in the morning at 6.30 a.m., the investigating officer did not notice any motor cycle in the place of occurrence. Therefore, this aspect also creates doubt in the prosecution case. Therefore, we are of the view that the motive being a double edged weapon, the possibility of implicating the accused persons in the case on hand cannot be ruled out. While the motive part may lend some support to the prosecution case, in the absence of any reliable evidence pointing to the involvement of the accused persons in the crime, the case of the prosecution creates serious doubt. Considering the entire aspect of the matter and in the light of the above reasoning, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt and hence, we are inclined to extend the benefit of doubt to all the accused/appellants herein. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2026 05:57:52 pm )