Gopal Singh & Anr. vs State of Uttarakhand

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

6 February 2025

Case No.

Criminal Appeal No. 1408 of 2014

Result

Allowed

Bench

Abhay S. Oka, Ujjal Bhuyan

Citation

[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1174 : 2025 INSC 263

Acts & Sections

IPC

Issue for consideration

Trial court convicted the appellants under Sections 302 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. High Court altered the conviction to Section 304 Part II, IPC. Whether the identity of the appellants as accused was established. Appellants, if entitled to acquittal.

Headnote

Evidence – Identity as accused not established – Trial court convicted the appellants u/ss.302, 323 r/w s.34, IPC – High Court altered the conviction to s.304 Part II, IPC – Interference with:

Held: Identity of the present appellants as accused was not established before the Court by any of the witnesses – There was no evidence against the appellants – When the prosecution alleges that a particular person has committed an offence, it is its duty to establish the identity of the accused as the person who has committed the offence by adducing evidence – This is very fundamental going to the root of the matter however, was ignored by the Sessions Court and the High Court – Impugned judgments as regards the appellants are quashed and set aside – Appellants acquitted. [Para 5]

Judgment Abhay S Oka, J. 1. Initially, this appeal was preferred by the three accused. Appellant no.1-Hari Singh (accused no.1) is no more. The appeal survives insofar as the appellant no.2-Gopal Singh (accused no.4) and appellant no.3-Avtar Singh (accused no.5)are concerned. PW-1Soban Singh is the complainant, and the deceased, Gaje Singh, was his brother-in-law. A total of five accused were charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’). The appellants were convicted by the Sessions Court and were s

View Subscription Plans →