CRIMINAL LAW -II
Dr.Shakuntala Misra National Rehabilitation University, Lucknow
PROJECT ON
Rule Of Motive In Criminal law SUNIL KUMAR vs. STATE OF U.P. (Criminal Appeal No.1241 of 2003)
“
SUBMITED TO: Dr. Girjesh Shukla Sir Faculty of Law Date 2016/2017
’’
SUBMITED BY: Himanshu Raja Roll No – 25 SUBJECT: Criminal Law: -II IV Semester
1|P 1|P a g e
CRIMINAL LAW -II
Annexure ‘A’– Front-page and Cover
TITLE OF PROJECT -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Rule -------------------Rule of Motive In Criminal law-----------------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 No…25 Of Faculty of Law Dr. Shakuntala Misra National Rehabilitation University, Lucknow In April, 2017 Under the guidance of Dr. Grijesh Shukla Faculty of Law
2|P 2|P a g e
CRIMINAL LAW -II
Annexure ‘B’– Certificate 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 Lucknow for Law of Crimes-II, Crimes-II, as part of Internal 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 3|P a g e
CRIMINAL LAW -II
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMEN TS I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my teacher Dr. Grijesh Shukla as 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 4|P a g e
CRIMINAL LAW -II
Table of Contents Annexure ‘A’………………………………………………………………..……. Page.2 Annexure ‘B’…………………………………………………………………….…. ..Page.3 Acknowledgement Acknowledgement ……………………………………………..... …………………………………………….................... ................... .......Page.4 Table of Contents …………………………..…………………………….……….Page.5 ABSTRACT, INTRODUCTION ................................. ................................................ ............................... .....................Page.6 .....Page.6 INTRODUCTION ............................... ............................................... .............................. ............................. ............................... ..................Page7 ..Page7
THE CURRENT ROLE OF MOTIVE IN CRIMINAL LAW……………Page.8-10 CASE ………………………………………………………………………..………… Page.11-14 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………..… Page15 Bibliography….……………………………………………………………. .……….Page.16
5|P 5|P a g e
CRIMINAL LAW -II
ABSTRACT
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. Motive’s 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 motive’s increasing importance in criminal law, it s treatment is icons intent and incomplete. This Article proposes an expanded role for motive in criminal punishment, in which a defendant’s 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 defendant’s 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 6|P a g e
CRIMINAL LAW -II 1
INTRODUCTION
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 defendant’s 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 defendant’s mental state is relevant only to determine if she acted with mens rea —did she act purposefully, knowingly, recklessly, et cetera. Evidence of a defendant’s 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.
1
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 7|P a g e
CRIMINAL LAW -II
THE CURRENT ROLE OF MOTIVE IN CRIMINAL LAW
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 else’s bicycle, but mistakenly took her own bicycle, then she is not guilty of theft because she did not commit the illegal act. 2
INTENTION INTENTION AND MOTIVE 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
2
She may, however, be gu ilty of attempted theft See hari singh gour, the penal law of india. Vol 1, 11 th edn, law publisher Allahabad ,1998 p 232 4 S Raghubir singh sandhuwala v. commr of it AIR 1958 punj 250 3
8|P 8|P a g e
CRIMINAL LAW -II
Identifying an Offender’s Motives
The literature discussing motives in criminal punishment has identified three practical concerns with identifying a defendant’s 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 motives.
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 offender’s mens rea will often be the same evidence that is used to establish the actus Reus. 5
5
See Gardner, supra note 58, at 686 – 89 89 (“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 inquiri es into motives are abandoned and mens rea offense elements are defined in terms of specifi c states of mind, as in the Model P enal Code scheme.” ). See also Adam Candeub, Comment, Motive Crimes and Other Minds, 142 U. P A. L. R EV. 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 9|P a g e
CRIMINAL LAW -II
Levels of Motives
Once a defendant’s 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
6
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 level of inquiry. 7 As Hurd and Moore explain, “the determination of someone ’s motives for action requires one to determine the nature and the relative weight of an inevitably complex set of motivational motivational desires, emotions, and dispositional beliefs and to assess assess the overall merit of their combination. combination. ” Hurd & Moore, supra supra note 3, at 1132. See also Hitchler, supra note 14, at 115 – 16 16 (discussing “complex motives”―that is, mixed motives). motives). Cf. 2 ROBINSON, supra note 40, § 122(b)(2), at 17 (“Must the justificatory purpose be the actor ’s only purpose? A primary p urpose? A necessary purpose, in the sense that the actor would not have engaged engaged in the conduct but for the justifying interests? Can the justificatory purpose be entirely secondary and tangential, although real? ”).
10|P 10|P a g e
CRIMINAL LAW -II
CASE
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 INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 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.
Issue:8
January 6, 2010
11|P 11|P a g e
CRIMINAL LAW -II
1. Whether they also liable for 302 yes or not
Rules: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 12|P a g e
CRIMINAL LAW -II
1. WHETHER THE ALSO THE ALSO LIABLE FOR 302 YES OR NO 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 witn esses have unanimously stated about the shop being there and the deceased being assaulted. Much of the crossexamination 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 13|P a g e
CRIMINAL LAW -II
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
9
June 19, 2015
14|P 14|P a g e
CRIMINAL LAW -II
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 15|P a g e
CRIMINAL LAW -II
Bibliography
1. PSA Pillai , Criminal Law , 12th Edition , Lexis Nexis 2. Gaur KD, Criminal Law : Cases and Materials, 2013, 6th Edition, Lexis Nexis ButterworthsWadhwa
Sites/ Links 1. https://indiankanoon.org 2. www.e-lawresources.co.uk 3. http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in
16|P 16|P a g e
