Eyewitnesses' Failure To Identify Accused In Court Is Fatal To Prosecution's Case: Supreme Court Acquits 8 Accused In Murder Case

The Supreme Court has acquitted eight accused persons in a murder case on the ground that the failure of the eyewitnesses to identify the accused in the Court is fatal to the prosecution's case.

The Court was hearing a batch of Criminal Appeals filed by the accused persons, challenging the Judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court which confirmed the Sessions Court’s Judgment.

The three-Judge Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka, Pankaj Mithal, and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah observed, “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.”

Considering the above made observation, the Bench said that it is not possible to come to a conclusion that the guilt of the accused is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Senior Advocates Rajesh Pandey and Sidharth Luthra represented the Appellants/Accused while Deputy Advocate General (DAG) Praneet Pranav represented the Respondent/State.

Facts of the Case

A total of nine accused persons 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 (IPC). The Trial Court convicted them and for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, the sentence of life imprisonment was imposed. The Appellants before the Apex Court were the accused nos. 1 to 8. They and accused no. 9 had preferred an Appeal before the High Court, which confirmed the Judgment of the Sessions Court. As per the prosecution case, one Kashiram had borrowed a certain amount from one Ganpat and as he could not repay the loan, he gave his shop and the land adjacent to it to Ganpat, who in turn, gave the shop to his relative-Rajendra and opened a medical store through him.

After commencing business, Rajendra purchased the shop and the adjacent vacant land from Kashiram by way of a Sale Deed. The accused with a common object, armed with deadly weapons like sword, rod, knife, poleaxe, club, etc. allegedly went to the disputed shop and murdered two persons and attempted to kill five other persons. These were the injured witnesses. Subsequently, an FIR was registered and the police claimed that recovery of a sword was made from the accused no. 1. Similarly, other weapons were allegedly recovered from the accused persons. As the High Court confirmed their conviction, the accused persons were before the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, noted, “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.”

The Court emphasised that an identification of the accused sitting in the Court by the eyewitness is of utmost importance and unless the same 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”, it further said.

The Court added that 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.

“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”, it also noted.

The Court, therefore, concluded that the versions of the eyewitnesses differ and hence, the guilt of the accused has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeals, quashed the High Court’s Judgment, and acquitted the accused persons.

Cause Title- Tukesh Singh & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 683)

Appearance:

Appellants: Senior Advocates Rajesh Pandey, Sidharth Luthra, AORs Mridula Ray Bharadwaj, Sameer Shrivastava, Advocates Mahesh Pandey, Mihar Joshi, Ayushi Pandey, Shivani Sharma, Chandrika Prashad Mishra, Neha Ahlawat, Yashika Varshney, and Palak Mathur.

Respondent: DAG Praneet Pranav, AOR Ravinder Kumar Yadav, and Advocate (Standing Counsel) Vinayak Sharma.

Click here to read/download the Judgment