LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/tukesh-singh-ors-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-20250514/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Criminal · Reportable judgment

Tukesh Singh & Ors. vs State of Chhattisgarh

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
14 May 2025
Case No.
Criminal Appeal No. 1157 of 2011
Result
Allowed
Bench
Abhay S. Oka, Pankaj Mithal, Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Citation
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 266 : 2025 INSC 683
Acts & Sections
IPC CrPC
Supreme Court Reports [2025] 6 S.C.R. 266 : 2025 INSC 683
Issue for consideration
Issue arose as regards the effect of the failure of the eyewitnesses to identify the accused in the court on the prosecution case.
Headnote

Witness – Eyewitness – Failure of the eyewitnesses to identify the accused in the court – Effect on the prosecution case – Prosecution case that accused persons with a common object, armed with deadly weapons, murdered two persons and attempted to kill others, who are now the injured witnesses – Trial Court convicted the accused persons for the offences punishable u/ss.147, 148, 307, rw s.149 and s.302 rw s.149 and sentenced accordingly – High Court upheld the judgment of trial court – Correctness:

Held: In cases where eyewitness knew the accused before the incident, they must identify the accused sitting in the dock as the same accused whom they had seen committing the crime – In cases where eyewitness did not know the accused before the incident, it is necessary to hold a Test Identification Parade – If it is not held and if the evidence of 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 Court by the eyewitness is of utmost importance – Unless the eyewitnesses identify the accused present in Court, it cannot be said that, based on the testimony of the eyewitnesses, guilt of the accused has been proved – None of the eyewitnesses specifically identified any of the accused in the Court – 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 – Versions of eyewitnesses differ – Guilt of the accused not been proved beyond reasonable doubt – Impugned judgment quashed and set aside – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.147, 148, 149, 302, 307. [Paras 21-26]

Keywords: Murder · Common object · Injured eyewitnesses · Deadly weapons · Test Identification Parade · Specifically identified accused · Eyewitness knew accused before incident · Identification of accused in open court · Material omissions

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

Judgment Abhay S. Oka, J. FACTUAL ASPECTS 1. These appeals take exception to the judgment dated 10th 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 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’). The Trial Court convicted them under the aforesaid sections. For 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
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →