Eyewitnesses' Failure To Identify Accused Leads Supreme Court To Acquit Over 2001 Market Attack

A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka, Pankaj Mithal and Ahsanuddin Amanullah heard appeals against the judgment of the High Court of Chhattisgarh which had confirmed convictions arising from a 2001 incident in which nine persons were prosecuted for offences including murder and attempt to murder under Sections 302/307 read with Section 149 and related provisions of the IPC.

The Court allowed the appeals and set aside the concurrent convictions and sentences, holding that the prosecution had not proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The Court emphasised the centrality of in-court identification and the consequences of material omissions in witnesses’ statements. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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. ... If an eyewitness states that ‘he had seen A, B and C killing X and he knew A, B and C’. Such a statement in the examination-in-chief is not sufficient to link the same to the accused. The eyewitness must identify the accused A, B and C in the Court. Unless this is done, the prosecution cannot establish that the accused are the same persons who are named by the eyewitness in his deposition.” The Court further noted that 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.”

Background: The appeals arose from a violent episode on 23-24 March 2001 at a medical shop and adjoining premises in Masturi. The prosecution charged nine persons with a common object to commit murder and related offences; the Sessions Court convicted and sentenced accused nos.1–8 (the present appellants) to life imprisonment for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 149. The High Court of Chhattisgarh confirmed the convictions on 10 September 2010.

On appeal before the Supreme Court, counsel for the appellants challenged the evidence on multiple grounds: delayed FIR (lodged about five and a half hours after the incident), contradictions and omissions between depositions and recorded police statements, absence of contemporaneous identification procedures, presence of a counter-case and the existence of injuries on some accused that were unexplained by the prosecution. The State relied on testimony of injured eyewitnesses and recovery of alleged weapons.

The Supreme Court analysed evidence of the injured eyewitnesses (PWs 1, 3, 4, 5 and 8) and observed numerous material omissions between their depositions and statements recorded under Section 162 CrPC. Several eyewitnesses knew some assailants by face but were not called upon to identify the accused in court by ascribing specific roles; many statements were recorded belatedly. Applying established principles regarding identification and the effect of contradictions under the explanation to Section 162, the Court held that the cumulative defects rendered the prosecution case unsustainable. Noting that the appellants had already undergone substantial custody and bail for many years, the Court quashed the impugned judgments, acquitted the appellants, cancelled bail bonds and allowed the appeals.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 683 Case Title: Tukesh Singh & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Not indicated in the judgment] For the Respondent(s): [Deputy Advocate General for the State of Chhattisgarh (name not specified in the judgment)]