Supreme Court of India
TUKESH SINGH & ORS.versusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 683
- Decided
- 13 May 2025
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- ABHAY S OKA
Holding
Failure of eyewitnesses to positively identify the accused in open court, without a test identification parade where required, defeats the prosecution’s case and mandates acquittal.
Summary
The appellants were convicted for murder, attempted murder and related offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 307 of the IPC based on the testimony of several injured eyewitnesses. The eyewitnesses either knew some of the accused before the incident or did not, but none of them positively identified the accused present in the courtroom, and no test identification parade was conducted for those who did not know them. The Court examined the material omissions and contradictions in the eyewitness statements and held that such failure of identification renders the prosecution evidence unreliable. It further observed that without a proper identification, the prosecution cannot prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, acquitted the appellants, and cancelled their bail bonds.
Issues considered
- The effect of the failure of eyewitnesses to identify the accused in open court on the prosecution's case
- Whether a test identification parade is required when an eyewitness did not know the accused before the incident
- Whether the prosecution has proved the offences beyond reasonable doubt in view of material omissions and contradictions in eyewitness testimony
- Whether convictions under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 307 of the IPC can be sustained without positive identification
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 162
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 147, s. 148, s. 149, s. 302, s. 307
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the effect of the failure of the eyewitnesses to identify the accused in the court on the prosecution case. Headnotes† Witness – Eyewitness – Failure of the eyewitnesses to identify the accused in the court – Effect on the case that accused persons with a common object, armed with deadly weapons, murdered two persons and attempted to kill others, who are now the injured witnesses – Trial Court convicted the accused persons for the offences punishable u/ss.147, 148, 307, rw s.149 and s.302 rw s.149 and
Subjects
MurderCommon objectInjured eyewitnessesDeadly weaponsTest Identification ParadeSpecifically identified accusedEyewitness knew accused before incidentIdentification of accused in open courtMaterial omissions
Judgment
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 266 : 2025 INSC 683
Tukesh Singh & Ors.
v.
State of Chhattisgarh
(Criminal Appeal No. 1157 of 2011)
14 May 2025
[Abhay S. Oka,* Pankaj Mithal and
Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose as regards the effect of the failure of the eyewitnesses
to identify the accused in the court on the prosecution case.
Headnotes†
Witness – Eyewitness – Failure of the eyewitnesses to identify
the accused in the court – Effect on the prosecution case –
Prosecution case that accused persons with a common object,
armed with deadly weapons, murdered two persons and
attempted to kill others, who are now the injured witnesses –
Trial Court convicted the accused persons for the offences
punishable u/ss.147, 148, 307, rw s.149 and s.302 rw s.149 and
sentenced accordingly – High Court upheld the judgment of
trial court – Correctness:
Held: In cases where eyewitness knew the accused before the
incident, they must identify the accused sitting in the dock as the
same accused whom they had seen committing the crime – In cases
where eyewitness did not know the accused before the incident, it
is necessary to hold a Test Identification Parade – If it is not held
and if the evidence of eyewitness is recorded after a few years, the
identification of such an accused by the eyewitness in the Court
becomes vulnerable – Identification of the accused sitting in Court by
the eyewitness is of utmost importance – Unless the eyewitnesses
identify the accused present in Court, it cannot be said that, based
on the testimony of the eyewitnesses, guilt of the accused has
been proved – None of the eyewitnesses specifically identified
any of the accused in the Court – Failure of the eyewitnesses to
identify the accused in the court as the accused they had seen
* Author
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 267
Tukesh Singh & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh
committing the crime is fatal to the prosecution’s case – There are
material omissions brought on record in the cross-examination of
the eyewitnesses – Versions of eyewitnesses differ – Guilt of the
accused not been proved beyond reasonable doubt – Impugned
judgment quashed and set aside – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.147,
148, 149, 302, 307. [Paras 21-26]
Case Law Cited
Sudhir & Ors. v. State of M.P. [2001] 1 SCR 813 : (2001) 2 SCC
688; Kuldip Yadav & Ors. v. State of Bihar [2011] 5 SCR 186 :
(2011) 5 SCC 324; Nand Lal & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh [2023]
2 SCR 276 : (2023) 10 SCC 470 – referred to.
List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
List of Keywords
Murder; Common object; Injured eyewitnesses; Deadly weapons;
Test Identification Parade; Specifically identified accused;
Eyewitness knew accused before incident; Identification of accused
in open court; Material omissions.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1157 of 2011
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.09.2010 of the High Court
of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in CRLA No. 454 of 2003
With
Criminal Appeal No. 1608 of 2011 and Criminal Appeal No. 1713
of 2012
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellants:
Sidharth Luthra, Rajesh Pandey, Sr. Advs., Mahesh Pandey,
Mihir Joshi, Ms. Nishi Prabha Singh, Chandrika Prasad Mishra,
Ms. Prashasti Singh, Ms. Mridula Ray Bharadwaj, Ms. Swati Surbhi,
Mahesh Pandey, Mihir Joshi, Ms. Nishi Prabha Singh, Chandrika
268 [2025] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Prasad Mishra, Ms. Prashasti Singh, Ms. Mridula Ray Bharadwaj,
Ms. Swati Surbhi, Sameer Shrivastava, Ms. Yashika Varshney,
Ms. Palak Mathur, Mrs. Priyanka Shrivastava.
Advs. for the Respondent:
Praneet Pranav, D.A.G., Vinayak Sharma, Ms. Kritika Yadav,
Ravinder Kumar Yadav, P. Amrut.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Abhay S. Oka, J.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
1. These appeals take exception to the judgment dated 10th September
2010 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh. A total of nine accused
were prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 147,
148, 307, read with Section 149 and Section 302, read with Section
149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’). The Trial
Court convicted them under the aforesaid sections. For the offences
punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC, the
sentence of life imprisonment was imposed. The present appellants
are accused nos.1 to 8. They and accused no.9 (Ramesh Singh) had
preferred an appeal before the High Court. By the impugned judgment,
the High Court confirmed the judgment of the Sessions Court.
2. One Kashiram Rathore, a resident of a place called Masturi, had
borrowed a certain amount from one Ganpat Singh. As he could not
repay the loan, he gave his shop and the land adjacent to it to Ganpat
Singh, who, in turn, gave the shop to his relative Rajendra Singh
(PW-11) and opened a medical store through him. After commencing
business, PW-11 purchased the shop and the adjacent vacant land
from Kashiram by way of a Sale Deed.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 23rd March 2001, the accused,
with a common object, armed with deadly weapons like sword, rod,
knife, poleaxe, club, etc. went to the disputed shop and murdered
Manrakhan Singh and Narayan Singh and attempted to kill PW-1
(Shivraj Singh), PW-3 (Virendra Singh), PW-4 (Judawan Singh),
PW-5 (Visheshwar Singh Thakur) and PW-8 (Rakesh Singh Thakur).
These are the injured eyewitnesses. The First Information Report
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 269
Tukesh Singh & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh
(FIR) was registered at the instance of PW-8. The Police claimed
that recovery of a sword was made from the 1st appellant (Tukesh
Singh–accused no.1). Another sword was allegedly recovered at the
instance of the 3rd appellant (Baba alias Rajesh Singh–accused no.3).
A dagger like weapon stained with blood was allegedly recovered at
the instance of accused no.7 (Mangal Das). A sword was allegedly
recovered from the 2nd appellant (Basant Singh–accused no.2). A
bloodstained club was allegedly recovered at the instance of the
4th appellant (Pappu Singh–accused no.6). A wooden plank was
recovered at the instance of accused no.4 (Anil Singh) and one rod
at the instance of accused no.5 (Vishnu Singh).
SUBMISSIONS
4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants has taken
us through the notes of evidence and other documents on record.
The learned senior counsel submitted that there was a counter case
in which prosecution witnesses and others were shown as accused.
Tukesh Singh (Appellant) had filed the FIR Crime Number – 49 of 2001
on 24.03.2001 at 03:00 PM. The counter case (Criminal Case No.79
of 2001) registered based on the said FIR ought to have been tried
with the case subject matter of these appeals. Therefore, prejudice
has been caused to the appellants/accused. He relied upon the
following decisions of this Court in support of his contention: Sudhir
& Ors. v. State of M.P.,1 Kuldip Yadav & Ors. v. State of Bihar2
and Nand Lal & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh.3 He submitted that
the accused also sustained injuries which were not explained by the
prosecution. He pointed out that the complainant’s party was the
aggressor as seen from the evidence. Moreover, there was a delay
of five and a half hours in lodging the FIR. There were two Police
Constables who arrived at the spot immediately after the incident.
Moreover, the Police Station was between two to three furlongs away.
There was a delay in recording the statements of PW-4 (Judawan
Singh) and PW-11 (Rajendra Singh). He pointed out that PW-13
(Dilip Singh), PW-14 (Shiv Kumar Dubey) and PW-15 (Ishwari Srivas)
were independent witnesses who did not support the prosecution.
1 (2001) 2 SCC 688
2 (2011) 5 SCC 324
3 (2023) 10 SCC 470
270 [2025] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
5. He submitted that the account given by the eyewitnesses PW-1, PW-3,
PW-4, PW-5 and PW-8 of the incident differs in material particulars.
He submitted that omnibus statements made by the witnesses
regarding the involvement of the accused are not sufficient to bring
home the prosecution’s case. He pointed out that the eyewitnesses
are related to each other and the deceased. Hence, they were
interested witnesses. But, three independent eye-witnesses have
not supported the prosecution. He pointed out that the depositions
of the prosecution witnesses indicated that there were large number
of independent witnesses present, as the incident happened in the
market area. The learned senior counsel submitted that the evidence
of the defence witness Dr Smt Subhadra Painkra (DW-1) established
that accused no.9 (Ramesh Singh) was an injured patient in the
hospital from 23rd March 2001 to 24th March 2001. She stated that
even accused no.8 (Tamesh Singh) accompanied accused no.9
(Ramesh Singh) in the hospital.
6. The learned senior counsel, therefore, submitted that the prosecution’s
case has not been established, and even assuming that it is
established, looking to the prosecution’s evidence, the case will fall
in one of the exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC. Therefore, at the
highest, the offence under the second part of Section 304 of the IPC
will be attracted. Considering the sentence undergone, the appellants/
accused should be let off on the punishment undergone. He pointed
out that the appellants have undergone sentences between 9 and
14 years until this Court released them on bail.
7. The learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondent-
State of Chhattisgarh has supported the impugned judgments. He
submitted that the injuries sustained by the four accused persons
were very minor. He pointed out that there was no evidence on record
to show that the complainant’s side was the aggressor and that any
of them had assaulted the accused. He submitted that no prejudice
has been caused to the accused on the ground that the trial of the
cross case was conducted separately. He urged that the testimony
of injured witnesses has been rightly believed by both the Courts.
He submitted that minor contradictions and omissions brought to
light in the cross-examination of the eyewitnesses are not sufficient
to discard their testimony. He would, therefore, submit that no case
is made out for interference with the concurrent findings recorded
by both the Courts.
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 271
Tukesh Singh & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh
CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS
8. Firstly, we will deal with the evidence of injured witnesses. PW-1
(Shivraj Singh) is the father of PW-11 (Rajendra Singh). Deceased
Narayan Singh was the elder son of PW1. The deceased Manrakhan
Singh was the father-in-law of PW-11 (Rajendra Singh). PW-1
stated that the incident happened on 24th March 2001, which was
a Saturday. He stated that he was not aware of the events of the
previous day. He stated that he knew accused no.1 (Tukesh Singh),
accused no.8 (Tamesh Singh), accused no.9 (Ramesh Singh), and
accused no.3 (Baba alias Rajesh Singh). He stated that these
accused were present at the time of the incident. He stated that he
did not know the rest of the accused. He stated that he does not
know whether the rest of the accused were involved in the incident.
He stated that at 8 a.m. on 24th March 2001, PW-11 (Rajendra
Singh) told him about the incident that nine to ten boys intruded
into his house next to the medical shop. They started abusing
PW-11 (Rajendra Singh). At that time, deceased Manrakhan Singh
intervened and tried to restrain the boys. However, he was told to
go out of the shop. Thereafter, PW-1 accompanied PW-11 to lodge
a complaint at the Police Station and first reached the medical shop.
He stated that at that time, deceased Manrakhan Singh was in the
medical shop of PW-11 (Rajendra Singh). PW-1 asked his sons to
go to the police station to lodge a complaint regarding the incident
of the previous night. Accordingly, PW-11, one Sukhnandan Singh
and Kanhaiya Singh, left for the police station. At that time, the
other deceased, Narayan Singh, was coming towards the shop.
Nine to ten persons came running and abused Narayan Singh.
Accused no.8 (Tamesh Singh) assaulted deceased Narayan Singh
with a sword and a lathi. Accused no.1 (Tukesh Singh) assaulted
deceased Narayan Singh by causing injury to his hands with an
axe. When the PW-1 sought help, PW-3 (Virendra Singh), his son,
went to the shop when nine to ten boys started assaulting him with
axes, swords and lathis. The witness stated that accused no.9
(Ramesh Singh) assaulted him on his right wrist and shoulder with
a lathi. He stated that he was not in his senses. Therefore, he did
not tell that the accused assaulted PW-8 (Rakesh Singh). In the
cross-examination, many material omissions have been brought
on record. The same are as follows:
272 [2025] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
(i) The witness accepted that though accused no.9 (Ramesh Singh)
had assaulted on the head of deceased Manrakhan Singh with
a lathi, it is not so mentioned in his Police statement;
(ii) He accepted that though he had told the Police that accused
no.3 (Baba) had assaulted deceased Manrakhan Singh, it was
not found in the Police statement; and
(iii) Even the case that accused no.9 (Ramesh Singh) assaulted
him on the wrist, near the shoulder and head with a lathi was
not mentioned in the Police report.
9. PW-1 stated that while recording his statement, he had told the Police
that he would identify some of the accused. However, the Police did
not get the identification done. There is something very crucial. As
he stated, he knew only four of the accused, he was not called upon
to identify any of the accused present in the Court, and therefore,
he did not depose that the accused present in the Court were the
same accused he had seen committing the offence.
10. Now, we turn to the evidence of PW-3 (Virendra Singh), a son of
PW-1 (Shivraj Singh). The witness stated that he knew accused no.1
(Tukesh Singh), accused no.2 (Basant Singh), accused no.4 (Anil
Singh), accused no.6 (Pappu Singh) and accused no.7 (Mangal Das).
He said that apart from accused nos.1, 2, 4, 6 and 7, others were
not known to him. He stated that he knew the rest of the accused
by their faces. In paragraphs nos.4 to 7 of his deposition, PW-3
(Virendra Singh) stated thus:
“4. In the medical store of Masturi my father Shivraj Singh,
brother Narayan Singh, Sukhnandan Singh, niece Rakesh
Singh, relative Lakhan Singh were also present. We
were sitting in the shop itself, near the counter and were
talking. At that time, all of a sudden, 9-10 persons armed
with weapons like sword, poleaxe, rod & lathi came from
the road side, saying attack-attack and directly assaulted
Narayan Singh. Tamesh Singh and Tukesh Singh assaulted
him with sword and when Narayan Singh shrieked, I ran
to save him. Mangaldas, Pappu, Anil, Tamesh & Tukesh
started assaulting me.
5. Mangaldas assaulted my nose with poleaxe, Tamesh
& Tukesh assaulted my head with sword, Anil assaulted
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 273
Tukesh Singh & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh
my back with rod, Pappu assaulted with sword, which hurt
near left eyebrow and face below the eye (left eye). At the
very moment, Manrakhan Singh rushed to save me, and
then Ramesh Singh assaulted his head with lathi, with him
his companion Baba also assaulted with sword. Vishnu &
Basant assaulted with sword. Vishnu & Basant assaulted
my father with sword and lathi. Ramesh also assaulted
him with lathi. At that time, Vishveshwar Singh & Judawan
Singh, were trying to save, then they were also assaulted
by Tukesh Singh, Tamesh Singh & their companions. They
also assaulted Rakesh Singh.
6. Amongst accused, poiting towards Baba, the witness
states that he was also one of the assailants, but I do
not know his hame. I was blood smeared. The blood was
oozing out, around my eye also, therefore, I could not see
further. After committing maarpeet, the accused went away.
7. I received injuries on my head at three places. Nose was
cut. I was assaulted with rod on my back. I also received
a sword injury on my left hand’s little finger.”
In the evidence of PW-3 (Virendra Singh), the following significant
omissions were brought on record:
(i) Accused no.1 (Tukesh Singh) and accused no.8 (Tamesh Singh)
assaulted on the neck of his brother and when he raised his
voice and rushed to save him, accused no.7 (Mangal Das) with a
poleaxe, accused no.6 (Pappu Singh) with a sword and accused
no.4 (Anil Singh) assaulted him with a rod. The blow by accused
no.6 (Pappu Singh) hit his left eyebrow and below the left eye.
Accused no.1 (Tukesh Singh) and accused no.8 (Tamesh Singh)
assaulted him on the head with a sword. Accused no.9 (Ramesh
Singh) assaulted the deceased Manrakhan Singh with a lathi.
The witness stated that he is unable to assign reasons why
these facts have not been recorded in the statement recorded
by the Police;
(ii) Accused no.7 (Mangal Das) was holding a poleaxe, and
accused no.6 (Pappu Singh) was holding a sword in his hand.
The witness accepted that this does not find a place in his
Police statement;
274 [2025] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
(iii) Accused no.6 (Pappu Singh) was holding a rod and a club in his
hands. Even this is not mentioned in his Police statement; and
(iv) Accused no.6 (Pappu Singh) assaulted him with an iron rod.
In his examination in chief, PW3 merely states without ascribing any
specific roles, that:
“Out of the accused persons, I know Mangal Das, Pappu,
Anil, Tukesh & Basant. I know rest of the accused persons
by their faces. Amongst accused, Ramesh Singh and
Tamesh Singh are not present in the Court today.”
He was not called upon to identify any of the accused present in the
Court, and therefore, he did not depose that the accused present
in the Court were the same accused he had seen committing the
offence.
11. PW-3 (Virendra Singh) stated that in the afternoon of 24th March
2001, his father PW-1 (Shivraj Singh), brother deceased Narayan
Singh, PW-8 (Rakesh Singh) and their relative Lakhan Singh were
present in the medical shop. At that time, nine to ten persons armed
with weapons like sword, poleaxe, rod and lathi came from the
roadside and, while calling upon everyone to attack, assaulted the
deceased Narayan Singh. Accused no.1 (Tukesh Singh) and accused
no.8 (Tamesh Singh) assaulted deceased Narayan Singh with a
sword. When the witness ran to save him, accused nos.1, 4, 6, 7
and 8 started assaulting him. Accused no.7 (Mangaldas) assaulted
him on the nose with a poleaxe. Accused nos. 1 and 8 assaulted
him on the head with a sword. He has ascribed a role to accused
no.4 (Anil Singh) and accused no.6 (Pappu Singh) in the assault
on him. Thereafter, the witness stated that accused no.9 (Ramesh
Singh) assaulted deceased Manrakhan Singh on the head with a
lathi. Accused no.3 (Baba alias Rajesh Singh) assaulted deceased
Manrakhan Singh with a sword. Even accused no.2 (Basant Singh)
and accused no.5 (Vishnu Singh) assaulted deceased Manrakhan
Singh with a sword. The witness stated that both of them assaulted
his father with a sword and a lathi. It is pertinent to note that even
if, according to the case of the witness, he knew the accused, it was
important for him to state that the accused present in the Court were
the same accused whom the witness in his examination-in-chief had
ascribed roles. However, he did not identify the accused in the Court,
as in the examination-in-chief, he was not called upon to do so.
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 275
Tukesh Singh & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh
12. Even in his evidence, there are omissions which read thus:
(i) Though he knew accused no.1 (Tukesh Singh) and accused
no.4 (Anil Singh), he did not disclose their names in his Police
statement;
(ii) The fact that accused no.1 (Tukesh Singh) and accused no.8
(Tamesh Singh) assaulted the head of the deceased and
accused no.4 (Anil Singh) assaulted with a rod on his back,
has not been mentioned in his Police statement; and
(iii) Accused no.2 (Basant Singh) and accused no.5 (Vishnu Singh)
assaulted PW-1 (Shivraj Singh) with a sword and a lathi. This
fact was not stated in his police statement.
In the cross-examination, the witness admitted that on 28th March
2001, he did not give his complete statement. He admitted that he was
unable to tell after how many days that he had given his remaining
statement. Therefore, it is not clear when his further statement was
recorded. That is not brought on record by the prosecution.
13. Now, we come to the evidence of PW-4 (Judawan Singh). He stated
that PW-11 (Rajendra Singh) called him around 11 p.m. on 24th March
2001. Somebody knocked on the door and tried to take him out. In
paragraph 7, the witness stated thus:
“7. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
Firstly, accused Tukesh Singh and Tamesh Singh assaulted
Narayan Singh, again said, assaulted with sword, the
said assault hit the neck of Narayan Singh, at that time
when Manrakhan Singh, who was sitting there i.e. near
the shop, ran towards that side to save, accused Ramesh
Singh assaulted him with lathi on his head and thereafter,
from his back Baba Singh assaulted on occipital region of
head. Virendra Singh rushed to save him, then Tamesh,
Tukesh Singh, Pappu, Mangaldas & Anil started assaulting
him with sword and rod.”
His statement was belatedly recorded on 14th April 2001, i.e. twenty-
one days after the incident. Even this witness did not identify any
accused in the Court by ascribing them a specific role. He merely
stated that he knew all the accused present in the Court, and he
named two of them. Even in the cross-examination of PW-4 (Judawan
Singh), vital omissions have been brought on record.
276 [2025] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
14. The following significant omissions were brought on record in his
cross-examination:
(i) Accused no.9 (Ramesh Singh) assaulted on the head of
deceased Manrakhan Singh with a lathi;
(ii) Accused no.9 (Ramesh Singh) was holding a sword in one
hand and a poleaxe in another; and
(iii) Accused no.1 (Tukesh Singh) assaulted him on the head.
15. Now, we turn to the evidence of PW-5 (Visheshwar Singh Thakur).
He described the incident of 24th March 2001. He stated that the
prosecution witnesses and others were sitting in the medical store
of PW-11 (Rajendra Singh). At that time, nine to ten persons armed
with weapons like sword, poleaxe, lathi, rod, etc., came running from
the side of the motorcycle garage of accused no.8 (Tamesh Singh).
Accused no.1 (Tukesh Singh) and accused no.8 (Tamesh Singh)
assaulted deceased Narayan Singh with a sword and a poleaxe.
Even accused no.9 (Ramesh Singh) and accused no.3 (Baba alias
Rajesh Singh) assaulted the deceased Manrakhan Singh with a
sword and a lathi.
16. In the cross-examination, he admitted that his statement was belatedly
recorded on 14th April 2001. The omissions brought on record in his
cross-examination are as follows:
(i) Accused no.1 (Tukesh Singh) and accused no.8 (Tamesh Singh)
started assaulting PW-3 (Virendra Singh);
(ii) Accused no.1 (Tukesh Singh) and accused no.8 (Tamesh Singh)
assaulted deceased Narayan Singh with a sword and poleaxe;
(iii) Accused no.9 (Ramesh Singh) and accused no.3 (Baba alias
Rajesh Singh) assaulted deceased Manrakhan Singh with a
sword and lathi; and
(iv) Accused no.6 (Pappu Singh), accused no.4 (Anil Singh) and
accused no.7 (Mangal Das) assaulted PW-3 (Virendra Singh).
Again, to this witness, the accused were not shown in the Court for
establishing their identity. PW-4 also stated that he knows all the
accused present in the Court and names two of them.
17. In the cross-examination, he stated that his statement was recorded
on 14th April 2001. There is a delay of twenty days in recording his
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 277
Tukesh Singh & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh
statement, though he was available. In the cross-examination, the
witness admitted that in the assault on deceased Manrakhan Singh,
only accused no.3 (Baba alias Rajesh Singh) and accused no.9
(Ramesh Singh) were the participants.
18. Then, we come to the evidence of PW-8 (Rakesh Singh Thakur).
His version in the examination-in-chief reads thus:
“5. At about 12.30 in the noon, Narayan Singh came from
Jalso. At about 1.45 p.m., Virendra Singh, Visheshwar
Singh and his elder brother also came to the shop from
Korba. After some time Rajendra Singh along with Kanhaiya
Singh also came to medical store from Jalso.
6. On the direction of elders, Sukhnandan Singh, Rajendra
Singh & Kanhaiya went to Police Station Masturi to lodge
report regarding the incident occurred in the previous
night. 2-3 minutes thereafter 9-10 persons armed with
sword, polcaxe, lathi etc. came from the side of Ramesh
Travels’ office and attacked on the persons sitting there,
saying ‘attack-attack’.
7. On this accused Tamesh Singh & Tukesh Singh
assaulted my elder maternal uncle Narayan Singh, who
was returning after consuming betel, with the sword as a
result he sustained injuries on his neck. Virendra Singh
when tried to save him, Mangaldas, Pappu, Tamesh,
Tukesh assaulted him with sword, lathi etc., as a result he
sustained injuries over his head and his lips & nose were
cut. Ramesh and Baba alias Rajesh started assaulting
Manrakhan Singh, father-in-law of Rajendra Singh, with
sword & lathi. Baba assaulted with sword and Ramesh
assaulted with lathi.
8. Thereafter, Basant & Baba Singh assaulted my maternal
grandfather Shivraj Singh and when I came out to save
them, Baba, Basant & Tamesh Singh attacked on me, they
assaulted me with sword and lathi as a result I sustained
injuries over my head, back & shoulder.”
Even in the case of this witness, he has not identified the accused
in the Court in his examination-in-chief. In the cross-examination, the
witness merely stated that he knows accused no.8 (Tamesh Singh)
278 [2025] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
and accused no.9 (Ramesh Singh), who were present in the Court
and the other accused. However, he did not individually identify the
accused. PW-8 (Rakesh Singh Thakur) lodged the Police report at
about 8 p.m.
19. The following significant omissions were brought on record in his
cross-examination:
(i) He had told the names of three accused on the night of 23rd
March 2001;
(ii) Accused no.1 (Tukesh Singh) and accused no.8 (Tamesh Singh)
assaulted PW-3 (Virendra Singh); and
(iii) Accused no.8 (Tamesh Singh) assaulted PW-1 (Shivraj Singh).
20. As regards the PW-11 (Rajendra Singh), he is not an eyewitness. He
only described the incident which occurred on 23rd March 2001. The
evidence of this witness is not material. He is examined basically
to prove what transpired on 16th March 2001 and 23rd March 2001.
Again, he has not identified the accused in the Court.
21. In a case where there are eyewitnesses, one situation can be that the
eyewitness knew the accused before the incident. The eyewitnesses
must identify the accused sitting in the dock as the same accused
whom they had seen committing the crime. Another situation can be
that the eyewitness did not know the accused before the incident. In
the normal course, in case of the second situation, it is necessary to
hold a Test Identification Parade. If it is not held and if the evidence
of the eyewitness is recorded after a few years, the identification of
such an accused by the eyewitness in the Court becomes vulnerable.
Identification of the accused sitting in the Court by the eyewitness
is of utmost importance. For example, if an eyewitness states in his
deposition that “he had seen A, B and C killing X and he knew A, B and
C”. Such a statement in the examination-in-chief is not sufficient to link
the same to the accused. The eyewitness must identify the accused
A, B and C in the Court. Unless this is done, the prosecution cannot
establish that the accused are the same persons who are named by
the eyewitness in his deposition. If an eyewitness states that “he had
seen one accused assaulting the deceased with a sword, another
accused assaulting the deceased with a stick and another accused
holding the deceased to enable other accused to assault the deceased.”
In such a case, the eyewitness must identify the accused in the open
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 279
Tukesh Singh & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh
Court who, according to him, had assaulted the accused with a stick,
who had assaulted the deceased with a sword and who was holding
the deceased. Unless the eyewitnesses identify the accused present
in the Court, it cannot be said that, based on the testimony of the
eyewitnesses, the guilt of the accused has been proved.
22. In the present case, in case of two eyewitnesses, in the cross-
examination, it is brought on record that the accused persons named
by them were sitting in the Court. However, they did not identify a
particular accused by ascribing him a role. None of the eyewitnesses
has specifically identified any of the accused in the Court.
23. In this case, the failure of the eyewitnesses to identify the accused
in the court as the accused they had seen committing the crime is
fatal to the prosecution’s case. There are material omissions brought
on record in the cross-examination of the eyewitnesses. They are
so relevant that the same constitute contradictions in view of the
explanation to Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973. The appellants/accused, before they were enlarged on bail,
had undergone a minimum of nine to ten years of actual sentence.
They have been on bail for about twelve years.
24. Considering the discussion made above, it is not possible to come
to a conclusion that the guilt of the appellants/accused is proved
beyond a reasonable doubt. As stated earlier, the versions of the
eyewitnesses differ.
25. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that guilt of the accused
has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
26. Hence, the impugned judgment and order dated 10th September
2010 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur is, hereby,
quashed and set aside and the appellants/accused are acquitted of
the offences alleged against them. As the appellants/accused are on
bail, their bail bonds stand cancelled. The appeals are, accordingly,
allowed.
Result of the case: Appeals allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Murder"Sign in to search