CRIMINAL LAW -II
Dr.Shakuntala Misra National Rehabilitation University, University, Lucknow
PROJECT ON
Rule Of Motive In Crimin Criminal al law “ SUNIL KUMAR vs. STATE OF U.P. (Criminal Appeal N.!"#! $ "%%&'
SUBMIT SUBM ITED ED T! " Dr. Dr. $ir%esh Shukla Sir (aculty o) Law Date +/012+/03
SUBMIT SUBM ITED ED B#! " &i'anshu Ra%a Roll No * + SUB-ET! " ri'inal Law! "II I4 Se'ester
!)P !)P a * e
CRIMINAL LAW -II
Annexure ‘A’– Front-a!e an" Cover
TITLE ( 5R-ET """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""Rule of Motive In Criminal law"""""""""""""""""" “ SUNIL KUMAR vs. STATE OF U.P. (Criminal Appeal N.!"#! $ "%%&' """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Sub'itte6 by
&i'anshu Ra%a
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
B.M L.L.B 7&ons.8 9 Th Se'ester
Roll No:+ ) (aculty o) Law Dr. Shakuntala Misra National Rehabilitation University, Lucknow In ;
")P a * e
CRIMINAL LAW -II
Annexure ‘#’– Certi$i%ate ERTI(I;TE The
Rule Of Motive In Criminal law & '(NI) *(MAR v+, 'TATE OF (,P, Criminal Aeal No,./0. of /1123 ’’ sub'itte6 to the (aculty o) Law, Dr. Shakuntala Misra National Rehabilitation University, Lucknow )or Law o) ri'es"II, as
&i'anshu Ra%a Si=nature o) the can6i6ate
&)P a * e
CRIMINAL LAW -II
AC*NO4)E56EMENT' I woul6 like to e?
lot o) Research an6 i ca'e to know about so 'any new thin=s I a' really thank)ul to the'. Secon6ly I woul6 also like to thank 'y
#)P a * e
CRIMINAL LAW -II
Ta:le of Content+ ;nne?ure ;C::::::::::::::::::::::::..::.5a=e.+ ;nne?ure BC::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:...5a=e. ;cknowle6=e'ent :::::::::::::::::.............................5a=e.9 Table o) ontents ::::::::::..:::::::::::.:::.5a=e. ;BSTR;T, INTRDUTIN .....................................................................5a=e.1 INTRDUTIN ..............................................................................................5a=e3 T&E URRENT RLE ( MTI4E IN RIMIN;L L;:::::5a=e.F"0/ ;SE :::::::::::::::::::::::::::..::::5a=e.00"09 onclusion:::::::::::::::::::::::::::..:5a=e0 Bibliography:.:::::::::::::::::::::::..:::.5a=e.01
)P a * e
CRIMINAL LAW -II
A#'TRACT Motive
1
1 ∗ Climenko Fellow and Lecturer on Law, Harvard Law School; B.A. 1999, Columbia Univerit!; ".#. $%%$, &ale Law School. ' thank Steve #uke, "ack (oldmith, And! Heick, Andrew
/)P a * e
CRIMINAL LAW -II
INTRO5(CTION
0
Everyone who watches Law H r6er knows 7or thinks they know8 that 'otive is very i'
T;E C(RRENT RO)E OF MOTI
)ent, Adriaan Lanni, #an *elt+er .
0)P a * e
CRIMINAL LAW -II
The classic inuiries at a cri'inal trial are whether the 6e)en6ant co''itte6 the )orbi66en act an6 whether she ha6 the necessary state o) 'in6. (or e?a'
INTENTION AN5 MOTI
I"entif=in! an Offen"er’+ Motive+
The literature 6iscussin= 'otives in cri'inal
1)P a * e
CRIMINAL LAW -II
'otives! @irst, that the evi6ence necessary to levels o) 'otiveG an6 thir6, that a 6e)en6ant 'ay act with >'i?e6 'otives.
Evi"en%e of Motive+ The evi6entiary concern is essentially as )ollows! because 'otive is a sub%ective, internal issue, it will be 6i)@icult to 6eter'ineG an6 althou=h intent is also sub%ective, it is easier to 6eter'ine than 'otive because the evi6ence o) an o))en6erCs 'ens rea will o)ten be the sa'e evi6ence that is use6 to establish the actus Reus.
)evel+ of Motive+ nce a 6e)en6antCs reasons )or actin= have been i6enti@ie6, a uestion 'ay arise about the relevant level o) =enerality )or i6enti)yin= her 'otive. + &avin= aske6 >why a su)@icient nu'ber o) ti'es, the in6ivi6ual whose 'otives see'e6 entirely =oo6 an6 hu'anitarian are reveale6 as actin= )or sel@ish reasons. 1 6 See (ardner, u/ra note 63, at 83839 :Actual moene element are de?ned in term o- /eci? c tate o- mind, a in the *odel @enal Code cheme. . See alo Adam Candeub, Comment, *o
2)P a * e
CRIMINAL LAW -II
Mixe" Motive+ The issue o) >'i?e6 'otives is
CA'E 'unil *umar <', 'tate of (,P,CRIMINA) APPEA) NO, ./0/ OF /112 >
Fa%t? This a<
!%)P a * e
CRIMINAL LAW -II
INDI; RERD ( 5REEDIN$S IT& RIMIN;L ;55E;L N. 0+9+ o) +// This 5etition was calle6 on )or %u6='ent un6er Section /9 II o) the In6ian 5enal o6e an6 sentence6 to su))er ri=orous i'
I++ue?., hether they also liable )or /+ yes or not
Rule+?The In6ian 5enal o6e section 093 )or riotin= a=ainst every Me'ber o) the cri'inal law section 09 6e
CRIMINAL LAW -II
e think the accuse6 un6er section /9 o) the In6ian 5enal o6e were char=e6 how cri'e it was absolutely wron= )or the' un6er section /+ o) the In6ian 5enal o6e was 'eant to i'
Ali%ation@Anal=+i+? ., 4;ET;ER T;E A)'O )IA#)E FOR 21/ E' OR NO It is also in this case lastly, it was state6 by the learne6 senior ounsel that the o))ence woul6 not be un6er Section /9 5art II, I5. ;t the 'ost it coul6 be un6er Section + or +1, I5. e 6o not think that we can acce
CRIMINAL LAW -II
that behal). Learne6 ounsel also su==este6 that consi6erin= that this inci6ent ha6 taken
9 "une 19, $%16
!&)P a * e
CRIMINAL LAW -II
Con%lu+ion? The Trial ourt @irstly, conten6in= that there was absolutely no reason )or the accuse6
!#)P a * e
CRIMINAL LAW -II
Bibliography 0. PSA Pillai , Criminal Law , 12th Edition , Lexis Nexis 2. a!r "#, Criminal Law $ Cases and %aterials, 2&1', (th Edition, Lexis Nexis B!tterworths)adhwa
'ite+@ )in9+ 0. htt
!)P a * e