4. Intention is relevant in determining the question of criminal liability.
5. The act is the result of intention. Intention is the immediate act. Therefore, the criminal law concerns with the intention.
6. The Court did not consider their motive to protect the cows from slaughter. It considered that the Hindus were guilty of offence, as their “immediate act” i.e.. removal of cows from the possession of the owner was bad in law according to Sec. 146 IPC.
7. Salmond said: “The point of asking what a man intends to do is to discover what he is trying to achieve……………
8. Salmond said: “The law will judge a man by what he does… into immediate and ulterior
9. Intention is relevant in criminal and civil liability.
1. The ulterior object is called motive.
2. “To purchase wine” is the “ulterior object”. This ulterior object is called “Motive”.
3. Motives may be good or bad.
4. It is a general rule that man’s motive is irrelevant in determining the criminal liability.
5. The criminal law does not concern with good motives. End cannot justify the means and therefore the motive cannot justify the intention.
6. Case-law: Emperor vs. Raghunatha Rai 1892: Some Hindus forcibly removed two cows from a Mohammedan to save them from slaughter in view of their religious beliefs and worship for cows. Their object and motive were good according to their religion.
7. The point of asking for his motive is to find out what personal advantage he is seeking to gain; and a motive-fewer act is one aimed at no such personal Advantage.
8. Not by the reasons for which he does it.”
9. In exceptional cases, in civil liability, sometimes motive is relevant, e.g. defamation malicious prosecution; cheque dishonour, etc.