Sampath Kumar vs. Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri, 2012

• According to the prosecution, one of the suitors of Usha and had a one-sided  affection for her. On 28th July, 2002 PWs. 1 to 3, their neighbour and the appellant-Shanmugam went to a theatre to see a movie and retuned home around 9.30 p.m. 
• While Selvam (PW1), Murugambal (PW2) and Lakshmi (PW3) retired to bed inside the house after dinner, the deceased-Senthil Kumar and Palani (PW7) slept as usual in the verandah of the house. 
• The appellant-Shanmugam also used to sleep with them but for some reason he did not turn up to do so on that day. At about 2.45 a.m. on the night intervening 28th and 29th July, 2002, Palani (PW7) heard the sound of a stone being thrown. He woke up to see the appellant-Shanmugam standing near the head of the deceased and the remaining two appellants also standing close by. 
• Palani (PW7) was threatened by the appellants not to disclose to anyone regarding anything for otherwise they would kill him also. At this, Palani (PW7) shouted and ran to hide himself on the rear side of the house. In the meantime, PWs 1 to 3 who were sleeping inside the house also awoke upon hearing the noise and started shouting for help. 
• This woke up their neighbour (PW8) in the opposite house who went over to the house and opened the door to help them come out.  PWs 1 and 8 then went to the rear side of the house to find the appellant-Shanmugam lying beside a plantain tree with his hands tied with a cloth.
• The police registered a case under Sections 302 and 324 IPC.
• Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence imposed upon them, the accused person preferred Criminal Appeal No.1008/2007 before the High Court of Madras.

Whether the motive is an Conclusive Proof in a case? 

• In this case, there were three appellants, Velu, Shanmugam and Sampath Kumar. Velu’s sister Usha was in love with the deceased Senthil Kumar. Previously, Velu had asked Senthil (the deceased) to stay away from his sister and had threatened Senthil (the deceased) that he would hurt the deceased if the deceased failed to stay away from Usha. However, later, Velu himself had agreed to marry off his sister to the deceased.
• Further, it was not known, but the other appellant, Shanmugam, was in a one sided love affair with Usha, and he had once seen the deceased and Usha in a romantic embrace. The trial Court convicted the appellants on the basis of the presence of strong motive on the part of both Velu and Shanmugam to murder the deceased. 
• The Supreme Court, herein, observed that the fact that the appellants possessed a strong motive to kill the deceased may be an important factor, however, even such strong motive to commit the crime cannot substitute the need for the presence of a conclusive proof.
• Thus, in the absence of a “conclusive proof” that is “beyond reasonable doubt”, the existence of a strong motive, no matter how strong, would not sustain. The Apex Court thereby acquitted the appellants for want of “proof beyond reasonable doubt.”

• The Court Concluded that look for independent corroboration to his version, which corroboration is not forthcoming.
• All that is brought on record by the prosecution is the presence of a strong motive but that by itself is not enough to support a conviction especially in a case where the sentence can be capital punishment.
• The court rejected motive which was the only remaining circumstance relied upon by the prosecution stating that the presence of a motive was not enough for supporting a conviction, for it is well-settled that the chain of circumstances should be such as to lead to an irresistible conclusion, that is incompatible with the innocence of the accused.