CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

Final draft for the project of Law of Evidence

On

“Matadin Vs. Emperor”

Submitted to: Dr. Meeta Mohini

Submitted By: Aishwarya Shankar

Faculty of Law of Evidence

Roll No:1913
 DECLARATION BY THE CANDIDATE

I, hereby, declare that the work reported in the B.A.L.L.B(Hons) Project Report titled “Matadin
Vs. Emperor” submitted at CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, PATNA is an
authentic record of my work carried under the supervision of Dr. Meeta Mohini. I have not
submitted this work elsewhere for any other degree or diploma. I am fully responsible for the
contents of my Project Report.

(Signature of the Candidate)

Aishwarya Shankar

B.A. L.L.B (Hons.) 2nd YEAR

SEMESTER – 4th
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

2. INTRODUCTION

3. FACTS AND JUDGEMENT OF MATADIN VS. EMPEROR

4. PROOF OF MOTIVE

5. ANALYSIS

6. CONCLUSION
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to show my gratitude towards my guide Dr. Meeta Mohini, Faculty of Law of
Evidence, under whose guidance, I structured my project.

I owe the present accomplishment of my project to our CNLU librarians, who helped me
immensely with the materials throughout the project and without whom I couldn’t have
completed it in the present way.

I would also like to extend my gratitude to my friends and all those unseen hands that helped me
out at every stage of my project.

THANK YOU,

AISHWARYA SHANKAR

SEMESTER 4th

CNLU, Patna
 INTRODUCTION

The evidence Act which was passed by the British parliament in the year 1972 contains a set of
rules and regulation regarding admissibility of the evidences in the court of law. These
provisions speak about both procedure and rights, as it provides the procedure as to how to
proceed to the court or how to establish our claim before the court.  The Evidence Act, identified
as Act no. 1 of 1872, and called as the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, has eleven chapters and 167
sections, and came into force on 1st September 1872. Spread Over a period of approximately 140
years since its enactment, the Evidence Act has predominantly retained its original form except
certain amendments from time to time. To trace the history of the law of evidence of our country
three different periods must be referred, firstly, the ancient Hindu period; Secondly, the ancient
Muslim period; and Lastly, The British period.

The origin of the concept of evidence can be traced back to the Ancient Hindu Period, for that
Hindu Dharma Shastra must be referred. It has been laid down in the Hindu Dharma Shastras
that “the purpose of any trial is the desire to find out the truth”. Yajnavalkya says: “Discarding
what is fraudulent; the King should give decisions in accordance with the true facts.” With the
aim to discover the truth from the contradictory claims made by two parties in a case the Hindu
law giver took every possible precaution. The Shastras commands, that the parties coming into
the court must be persuaded to admit the truth. Manu says: “the King presiding over the tribunal
shall ascertain the truth and determine the correctness of the testimonies of the witness, the
description, time and place of the transaction or incident giving rise to the case as well as the
usages of the country, and pronounce the true judgment”. Three kinds of evidences have be laid
down by Vasistha which are, Likhitam Sakshino Bukhti Parmanam Trividham Smritham  i.e.
Lekhya (Document), Sakshi (Witnesses) and Bukhthi (Possession).

The present enactment governing evidence’s admissibility in the court of law is a result of
British period. Before this time, the rules of evidence were based upon the local and traditional
legal systems of different social groups residing in India. These rules were different for almost
every social group, caste, community etc which created chaos in the legal prevalent legal system
of that time. After the advent of British East India Company in the dominion of India, it was
granted royal charter by King George I in 1726 to establish Mayor’s courts in Bombay, Madras
and Calcutta.  These courts followed the English rules of evidence law. On the other hand,
outside these towns in mufassil courts, there were no definite law relating to evidence. Hence,
Muffasil courts were having unfettered power in relation to evidence laws. This difference in
laws resulted in chaos in the Muffasil courts.  CJ Peacock observed in the case of R v.
Khairulla that, “English Law of Evidence was not the law of the mufassil courts and it was
further held that Hindu and Muslim laws were also not applicable to those courts. There being
no fixed and definite rules of evidence, the administration of the law of evidence was far from
being satisfactory”. 

This created a dire necessity for the codification of laws related to evidence. So, in the light of
this whole episode British government took the first step in this respect in the year 1835 by
passing the act of 1835. A total number of eleven enactments were passed dealing with the law
of evidence but none passed the test adequacy test.  In 1868, a commission was formed to frame
a draft code of the law of evidence. 39 sections were included in this draft code. In the fifth
report on the draft code of evidence in 1868, the commissioners admitted that most of the
English laws were not suitable for the Indian society. In October, 1868, after adding two more
sections, this draft code was introduced by Sir Henry Summer Maine, and referred to a Select
Committee.  It was circulated for opinion to local governments, and was pronounced by every
legal authority to which it was submitted to be unfit to the wants of the country.  The
predominant objection to it was not suitable for the officers for whose use it was designed.

In the year 1870, a new bill containing 163 sections in a form different from the present
Evidence Act of 1872 was prepared by Fitzjames Stephen. It is not clear if it was criticised by
the people of the country for whom the law was to be passed most of whom, even the elites did
not know English. Fitzjames Stephen recasted it and it ultimately passed as Indian Evidence Act,
1872.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES:

1. To know about the poof of motive.

 2. To know about the facts and judgement of the case of Matadin Vs. Emperor AIR 1931
Oudh 119.
3. To know about the importance of the proof of motive and in what circumstances it is
considered of prime importance.

HYPOTHESIS:

1. The proof of motive is considered to be a relevant.

2. Proof of motive is not a substantive piece of evidence rather it is corroborative in nature.
3. The case of Matadin Vs. Emperor takes into consideration section 8 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 dealing with the proof of motive.
 FACTS AND JUDGEMENT OF MATADIN VS EMPEROR

The appellant Hanumanprasad was sentenced to death under S, S02, Penal Code, by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad, for having caused the death of Ramkaran after an
attack on him on at Bundra, Harda tahsil, Hoshangabad district. With the appeal, will be
considered the reference made under Section 374, Criminal P. C, for the confirmation of the
death sentence, [After discussing facts and evidence their Lordships proceeded:]

III view of the material changes in the versions of Sheoram, Kashibai and Bahadur, [witnesses in
the committing CourtEd.] the trial Court was fully entitled to have recourse to the provisions of
8. 288, Criminal P. 0., to bring their depositions in the committing Court on record. These
witnesses had undoubtedly been won over in the interim and it may reasonably be presumed that
the malguzar Badriprasad was responsible for this as well as for subornation of the testimony of
Sitaram and Ramkaran, carpenter, who were working for him when the attack took place.

The evidence so brought on record was good evidence and it did not require corroboration from
another source. This was the view taken in Paramanand v. King Emperor, 1940 N. L. J. 459:
(A.I.R, (27) 1940 Nag 840:42 Or. L. J. 1) by a Division Bench which followed Abdul Gani
Bhurya v. Emperor, 68 Cal. 181: (A.I.R. (IS) 1926 Cal. 235: 26 Cr. L. J. 1577) and Narinjan
Singh v. The Crown, I. L. R. (19S6) 17 Lah. 419: (A.I.R. (23) 1936 Lah. 8fi7: 87 Or. L. J. 667).
In Emperor v. Tulli, 47 all. 276 : , it was also held that under Section 288, Criminal P. C, as now
amended, it is competent to a Court of Session, if it considers that the evidence given by
witnesses before it is false while the evidence given by the same witnesses in the Committing
Magistrate's Court was true, to act upon the evidence given before the Magistrate in preference to
that given before itself. Evidence so transferred is, as pointed out in Mohammad Sarwar v. The
Crown, A. l. R. (1943) 24 Lah. J697: (A.I.R. (29) 1942 Lah. 215 I 43 Cr. L. J. 828), substantive
evidence and usable for all purposes without having been specifically put to the witness,
although, as a Division Bench of which one of us was a member pointed out in a recent case, it is
desirable as a matter of practice to put the previous deposition to the rosining witness.1

1
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1940602/. Retrieved on 29th February; 15:00 Hours.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge had undoubtedly taken an unduly grave view of the
whole case and a view which in one respect at least was based on an error. We refer to his
comments in para 85 of his judgment to the effect that no injury was found on the person of the
accused, although there was the testimony of Shri S. K. Pradhan that there were three abrasions
on the appellant's person. Clearly enough, the appellant had no intention of causing Ramkaran's
death and the learned Additional Government Pleader conceded that Section 302 and part one
of Section 304, Penal Code, were not applicable to the case. The weapon used by the appellant
was not recovered, but was not formidable, as per Sitaram, it was only about 1 inch in diameter
and lJ-2 cubits long. A weapon of that kind would not have been heavy and there was nothing to
show that the appellant had used be to hands when he struck Ramkaran on the head with it.
Moreover, if he had had any real intention of causing Ramkaran's death he would have followed
up that blow with other blows on a vital part whereas the evidence shows that the two succeeding
blows must have been on the right eyebrow and right elbow. At the same time, in view of the
large number of injuries on Ramkaran's person, it was clear that the attack on him was not an
ordinary attack but a sustained ajar determined attack which included blows with a lathi and
rough usage when Ramkaran was prostrate on ground which, according to the patwari
Laxminarain, it was sandy with particles of sand larger than those found in ordinary sand.

The appellant had, in our view, caused Ramkaran's death with the knowledge that his act was
likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as
was likely to cause death. The contention, therefore, of the learned Additional Government
Pleader that he was liable under part two of Section 304, Penal Code, was correct.

The conviction and sentence under Section 302 are accordingly set aside and the appellant is
convicted under part two of Section 304. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, a
sentence of rigorous imprisonment will be appropriate and we order accordingly.2

Subject to this modification, the appeal is dismissed.

2
Batuklal The Law of Evidence; Twenty Second Edition. Retrieved on 29th February; 15:00 Hours.
 PROOF OF MOTIVE

An idea, belief, or emotion that impels a person to act in accordance with that state of mind.

Motive is usually used in connection with criminal law to explain why a person acted or refused
to act in a certain way—for example, to support the prosecution's assertion that the accused
committed the crime. If a person accused of murder was the beneficiary of a life insurance policy
on the deceased, the prosecution might argue that greed was the motive for the killing.

Proof of motive is not required in a criminal prosecution. In determining the guilt of a criminal
defendant, courts are generally not concerned with why the defendant committed the alleged
crime, but whether the defendant committed the crime. However, a defendant's motive is
important in other stages of a criminal case, such as police investigation and sentencing. Law
enforcement personnel often consider potential motives in detecting perpetrators. Judges may
consider the motives of a convicted defendant at sentencing and either increase a sentence based
on avaricious motives or decrease the sentence if the defendant's motives were honorable—for
example, if the accused acted in defense of a family member.3

In criminal law, motive is distinct from intent. Criminal intent refers to the mental state of mind
possessed by a defendant in committing a crime. With few exceptions, the prosecution in a
criminal case must prove that the defendant intended to commit the illegal act. The prosecution
need not prove the defendant's motive. Nevertheless, prosecutors and defense attorneys alike
may make an issue of motive in connection with the case.

In civil law a plaintiff generally need not prove the respondent's motive in acting or failing to act.
One notable exception to this general rule is the tort of malicious prosecution. In a suit for
malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must prove, in part, that the respondent was motivated by
malice in subjecting the plaintiff to a civil suit. The same applies for a malicious criminal
prosecution.4
3
https://law.jrank.org/pages/8663/Motive.html. Retrieved on 29th February; 15:00 Hours.
4
https://law.jrank.org/pages/8663/Motive.html. Retrieved on 29th February; 15:15 Hours.
Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 deals with the motive, preparation, and previous or
subsequent conduct. Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for
any fact in issue or relevant fact. The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any
suit or proceeding, in reference to such suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue
therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person an offence against whom is the subject
of any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or
relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto. Explanation 1. —The word
“conduct” in this section does not include statements, unless those statements accompany and
explain acts other than statements; but this explanation is not to affect the relevancy of
statements under any other section of this Act. Explanation 2—When the conduct of any person
is relevant, any statement made to him or in his presence and hearing, which affects such
conduct, is relevant.5

ILLUSTRATIONS: A is tried for the murder of B. The facts that A murdered C, that B knew that
A had murdered C, and that B had tried to extort money from A by threatening to make his
knowledge public, are relevant.

A sues B upon a bond for the payment of money. B denies the making of the bond. The fact that,
at the time when the bond was alleged to be made, B required money for a particular purpose is
relevant.

No doubt motive is helpful in deciding a case but often it is very difficult to prove the motive
with which an act has been done, and so it has been laid down that if clear and certain crime has
been committed, it is not essential to prove that there was a motive for the crime. Absence of
motive and inadequacy of motive is comparative unimportance where there exists absolutely
cogent evidence that a crime has been committed by a particular person.6 The proof of motive
alone cannot be sufficient to convict the accused as it is not substantive but only corroborative in
nature.7

5
Bareact Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Retrieved on 29th February; 15:15 Hours.
6
Narayan vs State of Maharahstra, AIR 1971 SC 1656. Retrieved on 29th February; 15:15 Hours.
7
State of Punjab vs Bittu AIR 2016, SC 146. Retrieved on 29th February; 15:15 Hours.
 ANALYSIS

There is hardly any act without a motive. Motive is the moving power which impels one to do an
act. It is the inducement for doing the act. The absence or presence of a motive and evidence of
preparation, previous attempt, previous or subsequent conduct of the parties are relevant as they
help in proving or disproving a fact in controversy. It maybe sometimes important to know,
whether a man charged with an offence, has any interest or motive to commit it. In determining
the fact whether a man charged with an offence, committed it or not, it is important to know
whether before the act he made certain preparations to do the act. Again, the conduct, antecedent
or subsequent, of a person committing an offence or of a person against whom an offence has
been committed, maybe helpful in deciding as to whether a man has committed an offence.

In Lakshmi Vs. State, the accused was addicted to smoking ganja and taking wine. He used to
demand money from the deceased Chhote Lal who was opposed to this habit of life of the
appellant and would not accede to his request to advance him money to enable him to indulge in
these vices. A few days before the accused had also beaten his mother and wife. At that the
deceased hasd intervened and prevented him from doing so. On the appellant’s refusal to obey
him, the deceased had chained him. The accused had run away after breaking the chains. The
accused stopped speaking to Chhote Lal. On the evening of 6 th October,1954, Chhote Lal was
sitting at his door on a chabutra. The appellant took a pharsa and proceeded towards Chhote Lal.
He began to assault Chhote Lal with the pharsa. Chhote Lal raised an alarm. A number of
persons reached the spot on hearing the cry. On the arrival of these persons the appellant fled
away outside the village with the pharsa.8

The accused tried to win over the witness of fact. In jail, he gave a correct description of his
address. At the trial at every stage, his statement was such as according to his conception was
best calculated to subserve his purpose and to advance his own interest. At the trial the accused
took the plea that he was of unsound mind at the time of the incident. All the facts given were
held to be admissible. The facts given were admitted as motive of the murder.9

Motive should not be confused with the intention. Intention is an act of the will directing an
act or a deliberate omission. It shows the nature of the act which the man believes he is
doing. Motive is the reason which prompts the intention. It is the reason which induces him
to do the act which he intends to do and does.

8
Lakshmi Vs. State. Retrieved on 29th February; 15:15 Hours.
9
The Law of Evidence by Batuklal; Twenty Second Edition. Retrieved on 29th February; 15:35 Hours.
Motive is relevant and maybe proved in a case as it is of great importance to see whether
there was motive for committing such and such a crime or whether there was none. It is
always a right argument by the counsel of the accused that there is no apparent motive for
the committal of the crime for his client. Existence of a motive for committing a crime is not
an absolute requirement of law but it is always a relevant factor. 10

Motive is not important where direct evidence is available. In case of circumstantial

evidence the motive assumes importance. 11

In the case of Matadin Vs. Emperor it was held: if there is no direct evidence of an offence
but the court must infer about the guilt from the circumstances, the question of motive
becomes vital. If the motive is displaced or even made reasonably doubtful, it is enormously
in favor of the prisoner. In this case the conviction was set aside. Clearly enough, the
appellant had no intention of causing Ramkaran's death and the learned Additional Government
Pleader conceded that Section 302 and part one of Section 304, Penal Code, were not applicable
to the case. The weapon used by the appellant was not recovered, but was not formidable, as per
Sitaram, it was only about 1 inch in diameter and lJ-2 cubits long. A weapon of that kind would
not have been heavy and there was nothing to show that the appellant had used be to hands when
he struck Ramkaran on the head with it. Moreover, if he had had any real intention of causing
Ramkaran's death he would have followed up that blow with other blows on a vital part whereas
the evidence shows that the two succeeding blows must have been on the right eyebrow and right
elbow. At the same time, in view of the large number of injuries on Ramkaran's person, it was
clear that the attack on him was not an ordinary attack but a sustained ajar determined attack
which included blows with a lathi and rough usage when Ramkaran was prostrate on ground
which, as per the patwari Laxminarain, it was sandy with particles of sand larger than those
found in ordinary sand.

The appellant had, in our view, caused Ramkaran's death with the knowledge that his act was
likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as
was likely to cause death. The contention, therefore, of the learned Additional Government
Pleader that he was liable under part two of Section 304, Penal Code, was correct.
10
Algupandi vs State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2012 SC 2405. Retrieved on 29th February; 15:35 Hours.
11
Subodh Nath vs State of Tripura, AIR 2013 SC 3726. Retrieved on 29th February; 15:40 Hours.
The conviction and sentence under Section 302 are accordingly set aside and the appellant is
convicted under part two of Section 304. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, a
sentence of rigorous imprisonment will be appropriate and we order accordingly.

Since the appellant had the knowledge that his act would likely cause death but the absence
of intention and motive laid down the contention that liability under section 302 of IPC was
not correct and hence was convicted under part two of section 304 of the IPC.
 CONCLUSION

CJ Peacock observed in the case of R v. Khairulla that, “English Law of Evidence was not the
law of the mufassil courts and it was further held that Hindu and Muslim laws were also not
applicable to those courts. There being no fixed and definite rules of evidence, the
administration of the law of evidence was far from being satisfactory”. 

This created a dire necessity for the codification of laws related to evidence. So, in the light of
this whole episode British government took the first step in this respect in the year 1835 by
passing the act of 1835. A total number of eleven enactments were passed dealing with the law
of evidence but none passed the test adequacy test.  In 1868, a commission was formed to frame
a draft code of the law of evidence. 39 sections were included in this draft code. In the fifth
report on the draft code of evidence in 1868, the commissioners admitted that most of the
English laws were not suitable for the Indian society. In October, 1868, after adding two more
sections, this draft code was introduced by Sir Henry Summer Maine, and referred to a Select
Committee.  It was circulated for opinion to local governments, and was pronounced by every
legal authority to which it was submitted to be unfit to the wants of the country.  The
predominant objection to it was not suitable for the officers for whose use it was designed.

In the year 1870, a new bill containing 163 sections in a form different from the present
Evidence Act of 1872 was prepared by Fitzjames Stephen. It is not clear if it was criticized by
the people of the country for whom the law was to be passed most of whom, even the elites did
not know English. Fitzjames Stephen recasted it and it ultimately passed as Indian Evidence Act,
1872. 

Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 deals with the motive, preparation, and previous or
subsequent conduct. Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for
any fact in issue or relevant fact. The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any
suit or proceeding, in reference to such suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue
therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person an offence against whom is the subject
of any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or
relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto.
In the case of Matadin Vs. Emperor it was held: if there is no direct evidence of an offence
but the court must infer about the guilt from the circumstances, the question of motive
becomes vital. If the motive is displaced or even made reasonably doubtful, it is enormously
in favor of the prisoner.

There cannot be one rule for every case, as regards of adequacy of motive; it must depend
on the moral character of the person accuse din each case. There can be no motive which
can induce an honest man to commit a crime. Sufficiency or insufficiency of motive is not
always of much significance in a criminal trial. Insufficiency of motive cannot be fatal to
the prosecution case in every trial. Similarly, sufficiency of the motive cannot be the basis
of conviction if the case is not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Motive
is not an indispensable requirement to be proved in a criminal trial for the commission of a
crime by an accused. Whether there is absolutely no motive or the motive alleged is not
sufficient, is immaterial in a case where evidence is overwhelming.

Absence of motive may not be relevant in a case where there is sufficient evidence to prove
the case but in a case based only on circumstantial evidence absence of motive helps the
accused and negatives the proof, that is to say in any case is based on circumstantial
evidence and if there is no proof of motive the accused may not be found guilty of charge.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS:

1. BATUKLAL THE LAW OF EVIDENCE; TWENTY SECOND EDITION

2. RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL THE LAW OF EVIDENCE; TWENTY FOURTH
EDITION
3. DR. AVATAR SINGH PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF EVIDENCE

WEBSITES:

1. http://lawtimesjournal.in/indian-evidence-law/
2. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1940602/
3. https://law.jrank.org/pages/8663/Motive.html
4. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/motive
5. https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=2260&context=llr