i) Whether the prosecution case could be sustained when none of the eyewitnesses specifically identified the accused in the court as the persons who committed the offence?

ii) Whether failure to conduct a Test Identification Parade (TIP) vitiated the prosecution case, particularly when some witnesses did not know all the accused prior to the incident?

iii) Whether material omissions and contradictions in the depositions of injured eyewitnesses rendered their testimony unreliable under the Explanation to Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?

iv) Whether the existence of a counter-case and the unexplained injuries of the accused weakened the prosecution case to the extent of creating reasonable doubt?

v) Whether the conviction of the accused under Sections 147, 148, 302, 307 read with 149 IPC could be upheld in absence of proof of common object beyond reasonable doubt?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the appellants, led by Sidharth Luthra and Rajesh Pandey, Senior Advocates, submitted that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They emphasized that the counter-case registered as Crime No. 49/2001 lodged by appellant Tukesh Singh showed that the complainant’s side was the aggressor. The suppression of this counter-case prejudiced the accused since both cases should have been tried together in accordance with the principle laid down in Sudhir v. State of M.P., (2001) 2 SCC 688, where the Supreme Court directed that cross-cases must be tried by the same judge to avoid conflicting findings.

The appellants also argued that none of the eyewitnesses identified the accused in court. They pointed out that identification in open court is mandatory for establishing linkage between deposition and the accused. Failure to hold a Test Identification Parade further rendered witness testimony unreliable, as held in Kuldip Yadav v. State of Bihar, (2011) 5 SCC 324.

The defence highlighted that the accused themselves sustained injuries, particularly Ramesh Singh who was hospitalized, which remained unexplained by the prosecution. The complainant’s delay of over five hours in filing the FIR despite the police station being nearby was cited as suspicious. Moreover, material contradictions and omissions in depositions of PWs 1, 3, 4, 5 and 8, coupled with hostile independent witnesses, demolished the credibility of the prosecution case.

Finally, it was urged that even if the prosecution case was partially accepted, at best the matter would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC (sudden fight without premeditation), thereby attracting Section 304 Part II IPC. Given that appellants had already served between 9 to 14 years before being released on bail, they deserved acquittal or at the least reduction of sentence.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The Deputy Advocate General of Chhattisgarh, Praneet Pranav, argued that both the Trial Court and High Court rightly convicted the accused based on the consistent testimonies of injured eyewitnesses. He submitted that the injuries on accused persons were minor and self-inflicted or caused during the scuffle. There was no evidence to suggest that the complainant’s side was the aggressor.

The State contended that minor contradictions or omissions in depositions cannot overshadow the otherwise clear narrative of the prosecution witnesses. Injured witnesses carry special evidentiary weight, as recognized in Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719, because their presence at the scene of crime is undeniable. The testimonies of PW-1, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, and PW-8, despite familial relations, were corroborative and consistent in establishing the involvement of the accused.

The State also argued that absence of a Test Identification Parade was not fatal since several witnesses already knew some of the accused. The delay in filing the FIR was reasonably explained due to chaos and treatment of the injured. It was urged that acquitting the accused would amount to a miscarriage of justice, given that two persons were brutally murdered with deadly weapons in broad daylight.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting armed with deadly weapon), 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 149 (common object).

ii) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 162 (use of witness statements for contradiction during trial).

iii) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 9 (Test Identification Parade as relevant fact), Section 134 (no particular number of witnesses required for proof).

iv) Constitution of India – Article 21 (right to fair trial, presumption of innocence).

v) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 – Article 14 (fair trial guarantees).

I) JUDGEMENT 

The Supreme Court, speaking through Justice Abhay S. Oka, re-examined the testimonies of all material eyewitnesses. It noted that while PW-1, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, and PW-8 narrated the assault and roles of various accused, none of them identified the accused in the courtroom as the same persons they had seen committing the crime. The Court underscored that identification in court is essential for linking the deposition to the accused. Without it, testimony remains a general narrative detached from the accused present in trial.

The Court further observed significant omissions in police statements of witnesses, which under the Explanation to Section 162 CrPC amounted to contradictions. For instance, allegations of assaults by certain accused were missing in police statements but introduced later in court depositions. Delay in recording statements of PWs 4 and 5 (21 days after incident) was also considered fatal.

On the issue of counter-case, the Court acknowledged that the accused lodged a separate FIR regarding the same incident, but the prosecution failed to explain why both cases were not tried together. Injuries to accused persons were also left unexplained.

Relying on Sudhir v. State of M.P., Kuldip Yadav v. State of Bihar and Nand Lal v. State of Chhattisgarh (2023) 10 SCC 470, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The golden thread of criminal law requires that where doubt exists, it must be resolved in favor of the accused.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court quashed the High Court’s judgment dated 10th September 2010 and acquitted the accused. Since they were already on bail, their bail bonds stood cancelled.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The ratio decidendi of the judgment is that failure of eyewitnesses to identify the accused in open court is fatal to the prosecution case. The Court clarified that two scenarios arise in eyewitness evidence:

• If witnesses knew the accused previously, they must identify them in court as the same persons who committed the crime.

• If witnesses did not know the accused, a Test Identification Parade must be conducted.

In absence of either, linking depositions to accused becomes impossible. The Court stressed that mere naming of accused in depositions is insufficient unless they are identified in the dock. The principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt requires strict compliance with evidentiary standards.

This ratio strengthens the jurisprudence that criminal convictions cannot rest on vague or omnibus testimonies. It reaffirms that contradictions and omissions in witness statements must be weighed carefully, and failure to hold a Test Identification Parade can render evidence unreliable.

b. OBITER DICTA

In its observations, the Court noted that injured eyewitnesses generally carry strong evidentiary value, as their presence is undeniable. However, even such testimony must pass the test of consistency and in-court identification. The Court also remarked that prosecution should have ensured that cross-cases arising out of the same incident were tried together to avoid prejudice, echoing earlier judicial guidance.

The Court further commented that the prosecution failed in its duty by not holding a Test Identification Parade despite some witnesses not knowing all the accused beforehand. This procedural lapse substantially weakened its case. It observed that criminal trials must balance the rights of victims with the constitutional protection accorded to accused persons under Article 21.

c. GUIDELINES

The Court laid down important guidelines regarding eyewitness testimony and identification:

i) Identification in Court Mandatory – Eyewitnesses must specifically identify the accused sitting in the dock as the same persons who committed the crime.

ii) Test Identification Parade Essential – In cases where witnesses do not know the accused beforehand, TIP must be conducted without delay. Failure renders later in-court identification vulnerable.

iii) Omissions Amount to Contradictions – Material omissions in police statements, if relevant, must be treated as contradictions under Section 162 CrPC.

iv) Cross-cases to be Tried Together – If there is a counter-case arising from the same incident, both cases should be tried together by the same judge to ensure consistency and fairness.

v) Benefit of Doubt Principle – Where prosecution fails to remove doubts, acquittal must follow, as conviction cannot rest on weak or uncorroborated evidence.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The decision in Tukesh Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh is a reaffirmation of the paramount principle of criminal jurisprudence: suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute proof. By acquitting the accused, the Supreme Court underscored that failure to ensure proper identification and corroboration of evidence is fatal to prosecution. The case highlights recurring lapses in criminal trials, particularly failure to conduct Test Identification Parades and reliance on omnibus statements of related witnesses.

The Court balanced two competing interests: the weight of injured eyewitness testimony versus the right of the accused to fair trial and presumption of innocence. While ordinarily injured witnesses command greater evidentiary value, their testimonies here were marred by contradictions and absence of in-court identification. The Court’s insistence on strict evidentiary compliance strengthens due process protections under Article 21 of the Constitution and harmonizes domestic law with Article 14 of the ICCPR on fair trial guarantees.

From a doctrinal perspective, the case fortifies jurisprudence on Section 149 IPC. Convictions based on common object require precise and credible evidence of participation and presence. Mere omnibus assertions are insufficient. Furthermore, the Court’s direction that cross-cases must be tried together echoes the principle of natural justice, ensuring no prejudice arises from selective prosecution.

In sum, the judgment is a milestone in refining evidentiary standards in criminal trials. It sends a strong message to investigative agencies to ensure procedural fairness, to courts to scrutinize witness testimonies with rigor, and to the legal fraternity that due process cannot be compromised even in heinous crimes.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

i. Sudhir & Ors. v. State of M.P., (2001) 2 SCC 688.
ii. Kuldip Yadav & Ors. v. State of Bihar, (2011) 5 SCC 324.
iii. Nand Lal & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2023) 10 SCC 470.
iv. Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719.

b. Important Statutes Referred

i. Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 304.
ii. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 162, 313.
iii. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 9, 134.
iv. Constitution of India – Article 21.
v. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 – Article 14.