Discrepancies in testimony of a witness caused by memory lapses are acceptable

Sampath Kumar v. Inspector of Police, (2012) 4 SCC 124
Criminal Trial
Appreciation of Evidence
Inconsistent versions/Discrepancies/Contradictions - Minor contradictions are bound to appear in statements of truthful
witnesses as memory sometimes plays false and sense of observation differs from person to person - Discrepancies in
testimony of a witness caused by memory lapses are acceptable - However, it is wholly unsafe to rely upon a version

with material improvement unless it is corroborated by some other independent evidence that may probabilise the
testimony - PW 7, in his statement under S. 161 CrPC made no accusations against appellants nor did he disclose to
anyone that he had seen accused persons on the spot around time of commission of offence - It was only five years after
occurrence that for the first time he disclosed in court, the story about his having seen appellants standing near
deceased when he woke up on account of the noise of a stone falling hard on the ground - There is no cogent and
acceptable explanation for his silence for such a long period - His assertion that he was scared by appellants even after
they had been taken into custody by police, is hard to believe, (2012) 4 SCC 124-A
Penal Code, 1860
Ss. 302/34 - Murder trial - Conviction reversed - Appreciation of evidence - Circumstantial evidence and motive - Death
caused by crushing head of deceased while sleeping - PW 7, sleeping with deceased in verandah, heard a sound and
woke up - PWs 1, 2, 3 and 8 sleeping inside the house also woke up on noise made by PW 7 - Sessions Judge based
conviction primarily on strong motive due to love affair of deceased with U, sister of appellant-accused V - Sessions
Judge relied heavily upon deposition of PW 7 and a letter allegedly written by appellant-accused S to mother of
deceased accusing appellant V - High Court confirmed conviction and sentence recorded by trial court - PWs 1, 2 and 3
stated only that deceased was fond of U and wanted to marry her which was not liked by her brother V - PW 7 stated that
appellants were standing near deceased with his head crushed, and threatened him not to disclose the facts to anyone -
PW 7's testimony was found unreliable as he did not disclose the facts to PWs 1, 2, 3 and 8 and even to police, and
disclosed the facts for the first time in court after a period of five years - Alleged letter written by appellant S could also
not be relied upon, as it was produced after recording statement of accused under S. 313 CrPC - Held, prosecution has
not proved its case beyond doubt, (2012) 4 SCC 124-B
Criminal Trial
Witnesses
Witness (PW 7) naturally present at place of occurrence i.e. sleeping in verandah with deceased the right deceased
was done to death - PW 7 improved his statement substantially - Witness neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable -
Courts have to be circumspect in respect of such witness and have to look for corroboration in material particulars by
reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial,
Motive alone can hardly be a ground for conviction - In absence of any other circumstantial evidence, motive would not
be sufficient to convict accused - On materials on record, there may arise some suspicion against appellant-accused, but
suspicion, howsoever, strong cannot take the place of proof - Conviction reversed,
S. 313 - Statement of accused - Facts not put to accused under - Admissibility of - Letter allegedly written by appellantaccused
S to mother of deceased accusing appellant V of murder of deceased - Letter produced after recording of
statement of accused under S. 313 - Confessional letter not put to accused when recording statement of accused under
S. 313 - Confessional statement was rightly held to be inadmissible by High Court,

Print Page