LexTUKESH SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[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 t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.