REPORTABLE

                IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.70 OF 2002   

State, represented by Inspector of Police, Tamilnadu ...Appellant

Versus

Sait @ Krishnakumar ...Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the

Madras High Court directing acquittal of the respondent.  The Trial Court, i.e. the

Court of Sessions, Coimbatore had found the respondent guilty of offence punishable

under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short `the IPC').   It is to be

noted that four persons,  including  the  respondent  were  tried   for

-2-

offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, Section 392 IPC and

Section 392 read with  Section  397 IPC.  The present respondent, i.e. A-1 was tried

for offences punishable under Section 392 read with Section 397 IPC and A-2 to A-4

were tried for offences  punishable under Section 392 IPC.   The learned Sessions

Judge found the respondent guilty of offences punishable under Section 302 as well as

for offences punishable under Section 392 read with Section 397 IPC and sentenced

him to undergo imprisonment for life and seven years rigorous imprisonment for the

latter offence.  The High Court found the evidence to be not cogent and credible and

directed acquittal.   

3. Prosecution version primarily rested on the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and

PW-8.  The trial court placed reliance on the evidence of such witnesses and directed

conviction, as recorded above.

4. The High Court found that it was an accepted position, as conceded by

PWs 1 and 2 that they had seen the photographs and read the names of the accused in

the newspaper prior to the test identification parade.   On that

-3-

ground, the High Court disbelieved the evidence of PWs 1  and 2.  So far as PW-3 is

concerned, the High Court found that his version to have only read the name of the

accused in the newspaper and not to have seen the photographs, was not believable.

Accordingly, PWs 1 to 3 were disbelieved.  The residual question was the reliability of

the evidence tendered by PW-8.  Here again, the High Court found that his version

lacked credence.  He claimed to be a person who had seen the accused after some time

of  the  incident  with a  blood  stained  knife.   But  his  conduct  was  found  to   be

unnatural.  If he was the only person to have seen the accused from close quarters, it

was not explained why he did not say so during investigation.  Such a version for the

first time in Court has been rightly discarded by the High Court.  Therefore, the High

Court directed acquittal, as noted above.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that even if there was

some scope for doubting the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, so far as PW-3 and PW-8 are

concerned, a different yardstick had to be applied.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent-accused supported the judgment of

the High Court.

-4-

7. We find that so far as PWs 1 to 3 are concerned, the High Court found

that they had occasion to see the photographs and read the name of the accused from

the newspaper prior to the test identification parade.  So far as PW-8 is concerned,

the High Court found that his evidence was at variance with that of PWs 1 and 2 and

had also lacked reliability.

8. The view taken by the High Court after analysing the evidence cannot be

said to be a view which is not possible to be taken.   

9. That being so,  we are not inclined to interfere in this appeal which is,

accordingly, dismissed.

                                    .....................J.   (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)              

                .....................J.              (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)  

New Delhi, October 01, 2008.