SAMPATH KUMAR versus INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KRISHNAGIRI

Citation: [2012] 2 S.C.R. 289 · Decided: 02-03-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012) 2 S.C.R. 289 
SAMPATH KUMAR 
V. 
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KRISHNAGIRI 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1950 of 2009) 
MARCH 2, 2012 
rr.s. THAKUR AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - s 302 rlw s. 34 - Murder - Prosecution 
A 
8 
for - No eye-witness - Conviction by courts below - Based on 
ocular testimony of a witness and motive - Held: Conviction 
C 
not justified - Evidence of the witness being in contrast with 
his police statement and not having independent 
corroboration, not reliable - Motive by itself cannot be a 
ground for conviction - However, in the facts of the case, even 
motive did not suNive. 
D 
Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - Motive - Evidentiary 
value - Held: Motive by itself cannot be basis for conviction. 
Criminal Trial - Discrepancies and contradictions in 
evidence - Distinction between. 
The appellants-accused were prosecuted for having 
caused death of one person. There was no eye-witness 
to the incident. The prosecution case was that the 
deceased had a love affair with the sister of one of the 
accused which was not approved by two of the accused. 
The trial court convicted all the three accused relying on 
E 
F 
the testimony of PW7 who stated that on the night of the 
occurrence, he was sleeping with the deceased, and on 
hearing a sound, when he woke up, he saw the accused 
G 
persons there. Trial court also based the conviction on 
motive. High Court upheld the conviction. Hence the 
present appeals. 
289 
H 
290 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeals, th.e Court 
.B 
HELD: 1. The prosecution has not proved its case 
against the appellants. They are entitled to acquittal 
giving them the benefit of doubt. The prosecution relies 
entirely upon the deposition of PWs.1, 2, 3 and 7. Of these 
depositions PWs. 1, 2 and 3 are not admittedly eye-
witnesses to the occurrence, nor have they stated 
anything against the appellants except that the deceased 
was fond of sister of one of the accused and wanted to 
C marry her, which was not to the liking of her brother. 
[Paras 16 and 8] [297-F-G; 302-E] 
2. The statement made by PW7 is in complete 
contrast with the statement made by him before the 
Police where the witness stated nothing about having 
D seen the appellants standing near the deceased around 
the time of the incident. This omission is of very vital 
character. What affects the credibility of the witness is 
that he did not in his version to the police come out with 
what according him was the truth, but withheld it for a 
E period of five years till he was examined as a prosecution 
witness in the court. Reliance upon the deposition of a 
witness who has made such a material improvement in 
his version is wholly unsafe unless it is corroborated by 
some other independent evidence that may probabilize 
F . his version. PW 7 is not a chance witness who had no 
reason to be found near the deceased at the time of the 
occurrence. What makes it suspect is that the witness 
has, despite being a natural witness, made a substantial 
improvement in the version without there being any 
G acceptable explanation for his silence in regard to the fact 
and matters which was in his knowledge and which 
would make all the difference in the case. The Court 
would, therefore, look for independent corroboration to 
his version, which corroboration is not forthcoming. All 
that is brought on record by the prosecution is the 
H 
SAMPATH KUMAR v. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, 
291 
KRISHNAGIRI 
presence of a strong motive but that by itself is n·ot 
A 
enough to support a conviction especially in a case 
where the sentence can be capital punishment. [Paras 13, 
8 and 14] [297-H; 298-A; 300-A-B; 301-A-C] 
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra 
8 
(1984) 4 SCC 116: 1985 (1) SCR 88; Aftab Ahmad Ansari 
v. State of Uttaranchal (2010) 2 SCC 583: 2010 (1) SCR 
1027; Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary and Anr. v. State of 
Maharashtra AIR 2000 SC 3352:2000 (3) Suppl. SCR 104; 
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Lekh Raj and Anr. AIR 1999 
SC 3916 :1999 (4) Suppl. SCR 286; State of Haryana v. 
C 
Gurdial Singh and Pargat Singh AIR 1974 SC 1871: 1974 
(3) SCR 6; Kehar Singh and Ors. v. State Delhi 
Administration AIR 1988 SC 1883: 1988 (2) Suppl. SCR 24 
- relied on. 
3. Although, according to the appellants the question 
of one the appellants having the motive to harm the 
deceased for falling in love with his sister, did not survive 
once the family had decided to offer her in matrimony

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.