1. Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. 2021, SCC Online All 686
Motive is not very relevant in a case of direct evidence, where it dependable ocular version is available. Once, there is evidence forthcoming on the basis of an eye witness account that is consistently narrated by multiple witnesses motive is hardly relevant.
2. Abu Thaker v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2010) 5 SCC 91
It is settled legal proposition that even if the absence of motive and if allowed is accepted that is of no consequence and pales into insignificance when direct evidence establishes the crime, therefore, in case, there is direct, trustworthy evidence of witnesses as to commission of an offence, the motive part uses its significance. Therefore, if the genesis of motive of occurrence is not proved, the ocular testimony of the witnesses as to the occurrence could not be discarded only by reason of absence of motive, if otherwise the evidence is worthy of reliance.
3. Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of West Bengal, (2010) 12 SCC 91
Motive is of no consequence and pales into insignificance when direct evidence establishes the crime. Motive is a thing which is primarily known to the accused himself and it may not be possible for the prosecution to explain it. Ocular testimony of the witnesses if reliable cannot be discarded only by the reason of the absence of motive.