Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 683
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No.1157 of 2011
Tukesh Singh & Ors. … Appellants
versus
State of Chhattisgarh … Respondent
with
Criminal Appeal No.1608 of 2011
and
Criminal Appeal No.1713 of 2012
J U D G M E N T
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
1. These appeals take exception to the judgment dated
th
10 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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2025.05.14
18:40:19 IST
Reason:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’). The Trial
Court convicted them under the aforesaid sections. For
Criminal Appeal No.1157 of 2011, etc. Page 1 of 22
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.
rd
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 23 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 (FIR) was
registered at the instance of PW-8. The Police claimed that
Criminal Appeal No.1157 of 2011, etc. Page 2 of 22
st
recovery of a sword was made from the 1 appellant
(Tukesh Singh–accused no.1). Another sword was allegedly
rd
recovered at the instance of the 3 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
nd
recovered from the 2 appellant (Basant Singh–accused
no.2). A bloodstained club was allegedly recovered at the
th
instance of the 4 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:
Criminal Appeal No.1157 of 2011, etc. Page 3 of 22
1
Sudhir & Ors. v. State of M.P. , Kuldip Yadav & Ors.
2
v. State of Bihar and Nand Lal & Ors. v. State of
3
Chhattisgarh . 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.
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
1
(2001) 2 SCC 688
2
(2011) 5 SCC 324
3
(2023) 10 SCC 470
Criminal Appeal No.1157 of 2011, etc. Page 4 of 22
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
rd th
23 March 2001 to 24 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
Criminal Appeal No.1157 of 2011, etc. Page 5 of 22
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.
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
th
the incident happened on 24 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
Criminal Appeal No.1157 of 2011, etc. Page 6 of 22
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
th
incident. He stated that at 8 a.m. on 24 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
Criminal Appeal No.1157 of 2011, etc. Page 7 of 22
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:
(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
Criminal Appeal No.1157 of 2011, etc. Page 8 of 22
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 my back
Criminal Appeal No.1157 of 2011, etc. Page 9 of 22
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,
Criminal Appeal No.1157 of 2011, etc. Page 10 of 22
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;
(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
Criminal Appeal No.1157 of 2011, etc. Page 11 of 22
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
th
24 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
Criminal Appeal No.1157 of 2011, etc. Page 12 of 22
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.
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
Criminal Appeal No.1157 of 2011, etc. Page 13 of 22
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
th
28 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
th
around 11 p.m. on 24 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. ”
Criminal Appeal No.1157 of 2011, etc. Page 14 of 22
th
His statement was belatedly recorded on 14 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.
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
th
Singh Thakur). He described the incident of 24 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
Criminal Appeal No.1157 of 2011, etc. Page 15 of 22
(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
th
statement was belatedly recorded on 14 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).
Criminal Appeal No.1157 of 2011, etc. Page 16 of 22
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
th
statement was recorded on 14 April 2001. There is a
delay of twenty days in recording his 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
Criminal Appeal No.1157 of 2011, etc. Page 17 of 22
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) 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.
Criminal Appeal No.1157 of 2011, etc. Page 18 of 22
19. The following significant omissions were brought on
record in his cross-examination:
(i) He had told the names of three accused on the
rd
night of 23 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
rd
on 23 March 2001. The evidence of this witness is not
material. He is examined basically to prove what
th rd
transpired on 16 March 2001 and 23 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
Criminal Appeal No.1157 of 2011, etc. Page 19 of 22
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 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
Criminal Appeal No.1157 of 2011, etc. Page 20 of 22
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.
th
26. Hence, the impugned judgment and order dated 10
September 2010 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh
Criminal Appeal No.1157 of 2011, etc. Page 21 of 22
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.
.…………………………….J.
(Abhay S Oka)
.…………………………….J.
(Pankaj Mithal)
…………………………….J.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah)
New Delhi;
May 14, 2025.
Criminal Appeal No.1157 of 2011, etc. Page 22 of 22
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No.1157 of 2011
Tukesh Singh & Ors. … Appellants
versus
State of Chhattisgarh … Respondent
with
Criminal Appeal No.1608 of 2011
and
Criminal Appeal No.1713 of 2012
J U D G M E N T
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
1. These appeals take exception to the judgment dated
th
10 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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2025.05.14
18:40:19 IST
Reason:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’). The Trial
Court convicted them under the aforesaid sections. For
Criminal Appeal No.1157 of 2011, etc. Page 1 of 22
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.
rd
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 23 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 (FIR) was
registered at the instance of PW-8. The Police claimed that
Criminal Appeal No.1157 of 2011, etc. Page 2 of 22
st
recovery of a sword was made from the 1 appellant
(Tukesh Singh–accused no.1). Another sword was allegedly
rd
recovered at the instance of the 3 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
nd
recovered from the 2 appellant (Basant Singh–accused
no.2). A bloodstained club was allegedly recovered at the
th
instance of the 4 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:
Criminal Appeal No.1157 of 2011, etc. Page 3 of 22
1
Sudhir & Ors. v. State of M.P. , Kuldip Yadav & Ors.
2
v. State of Bihar and Nand Lal & Ors. v. State of
3
Chhattisgarh . 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.
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
1
(2001) 2 SCC 688
2
(2011) 5 SCC 324
3
(2023) 10 SCC 470
Criminal Appeal No.1157 of 2011, etc. Page 4 of 22
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
rd th
23 March 2001 to 24 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
Criminal Appeal No.1157 of 2011, etc. Page 5 of 22
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.
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
th
the incident happened on 24 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
Criminal Appeal No.1157 of 2011, etc. Page 6 of 22
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
th
incident. He stated that at 8 a.m. on 24 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
Criminal Appeal No.1157 of 2011, etc. Page 7 of 22
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:
(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
Criminal Appeal No.1157 of 2011, etc. Page 8 of 22
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 my back
Criminal Appeal No.1157 of 2011, etc. Page 9 of 22
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,
Criminal Appeal No.1157 of 2011, etc. Page 10 of 22
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;
(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
Criminal Appeal No.1157 of 2011, etc. Page 11 of 22
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
th
24 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
Criminal Appeal No.1157 of 2011, etc. Page 12 of 22
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.
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
Criminal Appeal No.1157 of 2011, etc. Page 13 of 22
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
th
28 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
th
around 11 p.m. on 24 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. ”
Criminal Appeal No.1157 of 2011, etc. Page 14 of 22
th
His statement was belatedly recorded on 14 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.
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
th
Singh Thakur). He described the incident of 24 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
Criminal Appeal No.1157 of 2011, etc. Page 15 of 22
(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
th
statement was belatedly recorded on 14 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).
Criminal Appeal No.1157 of 2011, etc. Page 16 of 22
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
th
statement was recorded on 14 April 2001. There is a
delay of twenty days in recording his 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
Criminal Appeal No.1157 of 2011, etc. Page 17 of 22
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) 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.
Criminal Appeal No.1157 of 2011, etc. Page 18 of 22
19. The following significant omissions were brought on
record in his cross-examination:
(i) He had told the names of three accused on the
rd
night of 23 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
rd
on 23 March 2001. The evidence of this witness is not
material. He is examined basically to prove what
th rd
transpired on 16 March 2001 and 23 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
Criminal Appeal No.1157 of 2011, etc. Page 19 of 22
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 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
Criminal Appeal No.1157 of 2011, etc. Page 20 of 22
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.
th
26. Hence, the impugned judgment and order dated 10
September 2010 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh
Criminal Appeal No.1157 of 2011, etc. Page 21 of 22
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.
.…………………………….J.
(Abhay S Oka)
.…………………………….J.
(Pankaj Mithal)
…………………………….J.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah)
New Delhi;
May 14, 2025.
Criminal Appeal No.1157 of 2011, etc. Page 22 of 22