Chambers of Ishaan Garg
Ch. No. 217, Western Wing, District & Sessions Court, Tis Hazari, New Delhi, Delhi 110054
+91 8851742417, +91 8800386163
In Indian criminal law, motive and intention are distinct concepts that serve different purposes in determining criminal liability. While often used interchangeably in casual conversation, they have specific legal meanings and implications.
Definitions
Intention refers to the immediate, explicit purpose or goal behind an act—the conscious decision or objective that drives an individual to perform a particular action. It represents the deliberate mental state that accompanies an action at the moment it is undertaken. For example, when someone buys a knife, the intention might be to use it for cooking, self-defense, or causing harm.
Motive, in contrast, encompasses the underlying reasons or ulterior purposes that impel an individual to act. It represents the broader spectrum of emotions, personal interests, or circumstances that form the backdrop to any action. Motive is the driving force behind forming an intention, representing an ulterior intention. For instance, a person committing theft might be driven by financial desperation, greed, or a need to secure material possessions.
Key Legal Differences
Temporal Focus and Purpose
Intention pertains to the means employed and focuses on the immediate purpose behind an action
Motive pertains to the desired end result and involves the broader context or background reasons behind the act
Legal Relevance for Criminal Liability
Intention is crucial for establishing criminal liability and must be proven in cases requiring its presence. Under Indian criminal law, proving intention is essential to differentiate between an accidental occurrence and a premeditated act
Motive is not always necessary to establish the guilt of the accused. It provides contextual information that can help explain the accused's behavior but does not directly affect the determination of guilt.
Emotional vs. Rational Dimensions
Intention is typically seen as devoid of emotion—a calculated, rational decision
Motive is intricately linked to emotions, encompassing feelings such as love, fear, jealousy, or greed
Indian Legal Precedents
The Indian legal system places premium on demonstrable intent behind a crime. Several landmark cases illustrate these principles:
In Emperor v. Raghu Nath Rai (1892), a Hindu took a calf from a Mohammedan's house without consent to save it from slaughter. Despite the noble motive, the accused was found guilty of theft and rioting. This case established that having a pure motive does not absolve an individual of criminal liability if the intention is criminal.
In Emperor v. Appajibin Yadav Rao (1896), a Patel (headman) was found guilty under Section 161 of IPC for accepting illegal gratification, even though the money went to a village temple. The court held that the accused's noble motive was irrelevant in criminal law.
The case of Sanjeev v. State of Haryana (2013) established that in murder cases, the intention behind the crime matters most, not the motive. The court concluded that in circumstances of murder or culpable homicide, only intent or knowledge can be inferred.
Practical Application
When Motive Becomes Relevant
While motive is generally irrelevant in criminal law, it gains significance in specific scenarios:
Criminal attempts, where motive renders an otherwise non-wrongful act wrongful
When a specific intention is integral to the definition of a criminal offense
In civil liability cases such as defamation and malicious prosecution
Evidence and Proof
In cases with direct evidence against the accused, motive becomes irrelevant. However, in cases relying on circumstantial evidence, the absence of motive may benefit the accused. As established in State of U.P. v. Lakhan (1997), while motive can be inferred from circumstantial evidence, the clear establishment of intention is what ultimately grounds criminal responsibility.
The fundamental principle "actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea" (an act does not make one guilty unless the mind is also guilty) underscores the importance of a guilty mind accompanying the act. This principle emphasizes that intention, not motive, is the cornerstone of criminal liability in Indian law.
