TILKESHWAR SINGH AND OTHERS vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR.

Case Analysis

TILKESHWAR SINGH AND OTHERS vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR.

April 22, 2025

A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The landmark judgment in Tilkeshwar Singh and Others v. The State of Bihar ([1955] 2 S.C.R. 1043) rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India explores essential doctrines in criminal law, particularly concerning joint liability under Sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and procedural intricacies under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (CrPC). The Court’s in-depth deliberation addressed significant evidentiary issues, especially the legality and weight of jointly recorded witness statements under Section 161(3) CrPC, and clarified the scope for substitution of charges under IPC during appellate review. The case is a doctrinal benchmark on whether procedural irregularities invalidate substantive evidence. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision that substituted the original conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC with one under Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC, illustrating that such transformation does not vitiate trial fairness, provided no prejudice results to the accused. Additionally, the Court clarified the permissibility of written statements by accused instead of oral examination under Section 342 CrPC, provided there is no demonstrable prejudice. This judgment holds seminal value in evidentiary law and fair trial jurisprudence in India.

Keywords: Section 161(3) CrPC, Section 34 IPC, Section 149 IPC, joint liability, admissibility of evidence, written statement by accused, procedural irregularities, fair trial

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title: Tilkeshwar Singh and Others v. The State of Bihar

ii) Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 150 of 1954

iii) Judgment Date: 8th December 1955

iv) Court: Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum: Justices Venkatarama Ayyar and Chandrasekhara Aiyar

vi) Author: Justice Venkatarama Ayyar

vii) Citation: [1955] 2 S.C.R. 1043

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 34, 149, 302, 326, 147, 148
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898: Sections 161(3), 162, 342
Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 32(1)

ix) Judgments overruled by the Case:

Baliram Tikaram v. Emperor, AIR 1945 Nag 1
Maganlal Radhakishan v. Emperor, AIR 1946 Nag 173

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects: Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Evidence Law, Constitutional Criminal Procedure

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The appeal reached the Supreme Court following a conviction by the Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga, under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The charge arose from the death of Balbhadra Narain Singh, allegedly murdered by the appellants due to strained pattidari relations. The trial court relied heavily on testimonies from witnesses whose investigation-stage statements were recorded in contravention of Section 161(3) CrPC. Upon appeal, the Patna High Court altered the charge to Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC, triggering the present challenge. The appellants objected to both evidentiary reliance on jointly recorded statements and the substitution of charges at the appellate stage. The Supreme Court had to determine if such procedural anomalies justified overturning the conviction or undermined the sanctity of a fair trial.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The deceased and the accused were co-pattidars in Mahe village. On March 5, 1951, a group allegedly attacked the deceased at the village school courtyard. One absconding co-accused, Harischandra Singh, stabbed the victim with a bhala, while others, including the appellants, joined with lathis and swords. The deceased made a First Information Report (FIR) and a dying declaration, before succumbing to injuries en route to the hospital. Police filed charges under Section 302/34 IPC, and under Sections 147 and 148 IPC for rioting. The defence claimed that unknown persons attacked the deceased in his baithka and the appellants had no involvement. The Sessions Court convicted them under Section 302/34 IPC. On appeal, the High Court altered it to Section 326/149 IPC, reducing the sentence. The present appeal challenges procedural lapses, evidentiary admissibility, and the legality of charge alteration.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the recording of joint statements under Section 161(3) CrPC renders the witness testimony inadmissible.

ii. Whether a conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC can be legally substituted with a conviction under Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC.

iii. Whether filing a written statement under Section 342 CrPC instead of oral examination prejudices the accused.

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for the Appellants submitted that the jointly recorded statements of prosecution witnesses P.Ws. 4, 7 and 12 were inadmissible, as they violated Section 161(3) CrPC. They relied on precedents such as Baliram Tikaram v. Emperor, AIR 1945 Nag 1, and Maganlal Radhakishan v. Emperor, AIR 1946 Nag 173, where courts held that procedural defects undermined admissibility and fair cross-examination rights.

The appellants contended that the High Court erred in shifting the legal basis from Section 34 to Section 149 IPC without framing a new charge or notifying the accused. They claimed this amounted to legal surprise and procedural unfairness. They argued that this substitution violated principles affirmed in Wille Slaney’s Case, Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 1955 (pre-decision stage during the appeal).

Lastly, they argued that filing written statements under Section 342 CrPC deprived the court of oral interaction and compromised judicial assessment. They contended that the practice should vitiate the conviction unless demonstrated beyond doubt that no prejudice occurred.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for Respondent submitted that joint recording of statements, though irregular, does not make the evidence inadmissible under Section 161(3) CrPC, as per the Zahiruddin v. Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 75 precedent. The statements were not relied upon substantively but corroborated testimonies during the trial. Thus, no procedural illegality impaired the conviction.

They contended that Section 149 IPC could legally replace Section 34 IPC under Section 423 CrPC, relying on decisions such as Kamal Singh v. State of Punjab, [1954] SCR 904. The essential criminal act remained the same; only the legal framework differed.

They further emphasized that the filing of written statements by accused, though not ideal, was not legally barred. Since the written statements addressed all evidentiary questions and did not cause prejudice, no reversal was warranted.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Section 34 IPC: Common intention in criminal acts
ii. Section 149 IPC: Unlawful assembly with common object
iii. Section 161(3) CrPC: Recording of witness statements
iv. Section 162 CrPC: Bar on use of statements to police
v. Section 342 CrPC: Examination of accused
vi. Section 32(1) Indian Evidence Act: Admissibility of dying declaration

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI
The Supreme Court held that joint recording of witness statements, while improper, does not invalidate their admissibility in court. It affirmed that courts retain discretion to weigh such evidence. The Court rejected the Nagpur rulings in Baliram Tikaram and Maganlal Radhakishan and upheld Bejoy Chand Patra v. State, AIR 1950 Cal 363, supporting that breach of Section 161(3) CrPC affects credibility, not admissibility.

On substitution of Section 34 with Section 149 IPC, the Court ruled such changes are permissible at the appellate stage provided no prejudice occurs, consistent with Kamal Singh v. State of Punjab.

Regarding written statements, the Court held that Section 342 CrPC allows oral examination, but filing detailed written responses does not warrant reversal unless prejudice is proved. No such prejudice was shown.

b. OBITER DICTA
The Court remarked that the practice of recording joint statements and accepting written statements from the accused should be discouraged in the interest of procedural sanctity and effective cross-examination.

c. GUIDELINES

Joint statements under Section 161(3) CrPC are irregular but not inadmissible.
Section 34 IPC can be substituted with Section 149 IPC, provided there is no prejudice.
Written statements under Section 342 CrPC are valid substitutes if they cover prosecution queries and no prejudice arises.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This judgment cemented critical procedural clarifications in criminal trials. The Supreme Court balanced legal technicalities with substantive justice, ensuring procedural lapses did not override evidence reliability. It liberalized the evidentiary framework while reinforcing that any charge alteration or procedural deviation must pass the test of prejudice. This case now stands as a guiding precedent on evidentiary admissibility, criminal liability under joint intention and unlawful assembly, and procedural fairness in trials.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred