14 May 2025 Acquittal >> Criminal Law   |   Murder Homicide >> Criminal Law  

In a significant ruling of Tukesh Singh & Others v/s State of Chhattisgarh, the Supreme Court of India has quashed the conviction of eight individuals (appellants) in a double murder and attempt to murder case from 2001, setting aside the judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court and the Trial Court. The apex court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, highlighting crucial inconsistencies and omissions in the eyewitness testimonies.

The case dates back to March 23, 2001, when a violent incident occurred at a medical shop in Masturi, Chhattisgarh. According to the prosecution, a group of nine accused, armed with deadly weapons, attacked the shop, resulting in the murders of Manrakhan Singh and Narayan Singh, and injuries to five others. The incident reportedly stemmed from a property dispute over a shop and adjacent land.

Initially, the Trial Court had convicted all nine accused (including Ramesh Singh, who was accused no. 9 and did not appeal to the Supreme Court), sentencing them to life imprisonment for murder. The Chhattisgarh High Court later upheld this conviction.

Key Contentions and Supreme Court's Analysis:

The appellants' senior counsel argued several points, including the existence of a counter-case filed by one of the appellants (Tukesh Singh) that was not tried alongside the main case, causing prejudice. They also pointed to injuries sustained by the accused that were not explained by the prosecution, suggesting the complainant's party might have been the aggressor. Delays in lodging the FIR and recording statements of key witnesses, as well as three independent witnesses not supporting the prosecution, were also highlighted.

However, the core of the Supreme Court's decision rested on the failure of the prosecution to unequivocally establish the identity of the accused and their specific roles through the eyewitnesses.

The Court meticulously reviewed the depositions of the injured eyewitnesses (PW-1, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, and PW-8), noting several critical flaws:

• Lack of In-Court Identification: None of the key eyewitnesses specifically identified the accused individuals present in the courtroom as the same persons they saw committing the crimes. Even when some witnesses stated they "knew" certain accused or that named accused were "present in the Court," they did not individually link a specific accused in the dock to the actions they described during the incident.
• Material Omissions and Contradictions: The cross-examination of the eyewitnesses revealed numerous "material omissions" from their initial police statements. These omissions were significant enough to be deemed contradictions under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, undermining the credibility of their testimony. For instance, crucial details about who assaulted whom with what weapon were found to be missing from earlier statements.
• Inconsistencies in Testimony: The Court found differing versions of the incident among the various eyewitnesses, further weakening the prosecution's narrative.
• Belated Statements: The statements of some crucial witnesses were recorded days or even weeks after the incident, raising doubts about their reliability.
• Unexplained Injuries on Accused: The defense's claim that some accused sustained injuries, along with a defense witness (DW-1) testifying that an accused was hospitalized on the day of the incident, further cast doubt on the prosecution's complete account, as these aspects were not adequately explained.

Verdict:

The Supreme Court concluded that the cumulative effect of these shortcomings meant that the "guilt of the accused has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt." The Court emphasized that in cases relying on eyewitness accounts, it is paramount for witnesses to identify the accused in court and specifically link them to the roles they played in the crime.

Given that the appellants had already undergone between nine to fourteen years of imprisonment before being released on bail by the Supreme Court, and had been on bail for approximately twelve years, the Court ordered their immediate acquittal. Their bail bonds stand cancelled.

Section 147., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 148., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 149., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 300., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 302., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 304., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Indian Penal Code, 1860  

Section 162., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973  

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973