He submitted that in such a case of circumstantial evidence, motive assumes great significance.
“No doubt, this is so.
But, motive is such that it is locked up in the mind of the accused and sometimes, it is difficult to unlock the same”, said the high court bench.
The bench relied upon a supreme court judgement which lays down that failure to discover the motive of an offence does not signify its non-existence.
The verdict also says that failure to prove motive is not fatal as a matter of law.
Proof of motive is never indispensable for conviction.
When facts are clear it is immaterial that motive has not been proved.
“Thus, in view of the above decision, it is clear that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, even in absence of proof of motive, conviction can be imposed”, the judges said.
