LexGOPAL SINGH & ANR. versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1174 : 2025 INSC 263 Gopal Singh & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand (Criminal Appeal No. 1408 of 2014) 06 February 2025 [Abhay S. Oka* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Trial court convicted the appellants under Sections 302 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. High Court altered the conviction to Section 304 Part II, IPC. Whether the identity of the appellants as accused was established. Appellants, if entitled to acquittal. Headnotes† Evidence – Identity as accused not established – Trial court convicted the appellants u/ss.302, 323 r/w s.34, IPC – High Court altered the conviction to s.304 Part II, IPC – Interference with: Held: Identity of the present appellants as accused was not established before the Court by any of the witnesses – There was no evidence against the appellants – When the prosecution alleges that a particular person has committed an offence, it is its duty to establish the identity of the accused as the person who has committed the offence by adducing evidence – This is very fundamental going to the root of the matter however, was ignored by the Sessions Court and the High Court – Impugned judgments as regards the appellants are quashed and set aside – Appellants acquitted. [Para 5] List of Acts Penal Code, 1860. List of Keywords Identity as accused not established; Court Witnesses; Hearsay Evidence. * Author [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1175 Gopal Singh & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1408 of 2014 From the Judgment and Order dated 24.04.2012 of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in CRLA No. 187 of 2003 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellants: H. L. Chumber, Ms. Roopa Paul, Parveen Paul, Satyendra Kumar, Roshan Singh Thakur, Shivam Birt, Vishal Rathee. Advs. for the Respondent: Akshat Kumar, Ms. Anubha Dhulia. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Abhay S Oka, J. 1. Initially, this appeal was preferred by the three accused. Appellant no.1-Hari Singh (accused no.1) is no more. The appeal survives insofar as the appellant no.2-Gopal Singh (accused no.4) and appellant no.3-Avtar Singh (accused no.5)are concerned. PW-1- Soban Singh is the complainant, and the deceased, Gaje Singh, was his brother-in-law. A total of five accused were charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’). The appellants were convicted by the Sessions Court and were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The High Court brought down the conviction to Section 304 Part II of the IPC by the impugned judgment. 2. The case of the prosecution is that PW-1, the deceased and the accused were residents of the same village, and there was a prior enmity between them. On 21st November 1997, at around 10:30 p.m., PW-1 was going to the latrine accompanied by the deceased, and when they reached the stand post near the village, stones were thrown at them by the accused, who had sticks and stones in their hands. All of them assaulted PW-1 and the deceased Gaje Singh. One Raghuvir Singh (PW-3) took PW-1 and the deceased to his house. PW-1 had lost consciousness. On the next day, PW-3 and 1176 [2025] 2 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports others tried to take the deceased to the hospital, but he died on the way. The prosecution evidence rests on two alleged eye-witnesses, namely, PW-1-Soban Singh and PW-3-Raghuvir Singh. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State has also relied upon the depositions of Court Witnesses no.1 to 4. 3. With the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we have perused the evidence of PW-1. The first paragraph of his examination-in-chief records that when his evidence was recorded, the present appellants were not present in the court. Though PW-1 deposed ascribing a role to all the accused persons in the assault on the deceased and himself, PW-1 did not identify the present appellants as the accused in the Court as they were not brought to the Court. Therefore, from the evidence of PW-1, the identity of the appellants (appellant nos.2 and 3) as accused was not established. PW-3 is not an eyewitness, and he deposed that after he heard shouts, he ran towards the side from where the shouts were coming, and he saw the accused in the light of the torch which he was carrying. He stated that he recognised the accused
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.