Identification in Court Is Not a Ritual—It’s the Cornerstone of Criminal Proof: Supreme Court Acquits All in Chhattisgarh Double Murder Case

“When Eyewitnesses Fail to Identify the Accused in Court, Conviction Cannot Stand”: - In a compelling reaffirmation of criminal jurisprudence principles, the Supreme Court of India, on May 14, 2025, acquitted eight men who had been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for double murder and attempt to murder in a 2001 case from Chhattisgarh. In Tukesh Singh & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh, Criminal Appeal No. 1157 of 2011, the Court ruled that failure of eyewitnesses to identify the accused in court and multiple material omissions fatally undermined the prosecution's case.

“Unless the eyewitnesses identify the accused present in the Court, it cannot be said that, based on the testimony of the eyewitnesses, the guilt of the accused has been proved,” observed a Bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka, Pankaj Mithal, and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, setting aside concurrent findings of both the Sessions Court and the High Court.

The case stemmed from a violent incident that occurred on March 24, 2001 in Masturi, Chhattisgarh. The prosecution alleged that nine accused, armed with swords, rods, poleaxes, and clubs, attacked a medical store, killing Manrakhan Singh and Narayan Singh, and injuring several others including Shivraj Singh, Virendra Singh, Judawan Singh, Visheshwar Singh Thakur, and Rakesh Singh Thakur.

The trial court convicted all nine under Sections 147, 148, 307/149, and 302/149 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld the conviction in its judgment dated September 10, 2010. Accused Nos. 1 to 8 (including Tukesh Singh, Basant Singh, Rajesh Singh alias Baba, and others) approached the Supreme Court in appeal.

“Mere Naming of Accused in Testimony Is Not Enough – Identification in Court Is Crucial”

The Court was deeply critical of the failure of the prosecution witnesses to perform in-court identification. It noted that while several eyewitnesses claimed to know the accused and described their actions, none of them were asked to point out the accused sitting in court and assign specific roles.

“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,” the judgment reads.

The Court emphasized that where an eyewitness merely says “I saw A, B, and C killing X,” without identifying A, B, and C in court, “the prosecution cannot establish that the accused are the same persons who are named by the eyewitness.”

“Eyewitness Testimony Riddled with Omissions, Contradictions, and Delay”

The Court meticulously examined the depositions of five injured eyewitnesses—PW-1 Shivraj Singh, PW-3 Virendra Singh, PW-4 Judawan Singh, PW-5 Visheshwar Singh Thakur, and PW-8 Rakesh Singh Thakur.

It found multiple material omissions in each of their statements under Section 162 CrPC and pointed out significant inconsistencies in their testimony. The Court also noted delays in recording statements (up to 21 days) and the failure to explain injuries on some of the accused, thereby questioning the credibility of the prosecution’s narrative.

“The versions of the eyewitnesses differ. Material omissions have been brought on record. They are so relevant that the same constitute contradictions,” the Court held.

It further observed that several accused were named in court for the first time during trial, and there was no explanation why a proper test identification parade was not held, especially when some witnesses claimed not to know all accused personally.

“Prosecution Must Prove Its Case Beyond Reasonable Doubt – That Standard Was Not Met”

The Court invoked the bedrock principle of criminal law that the accused must be proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt, which it found sorely lacking in the present case.

“In the present case, 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,” the Court declared.

It noted that independent witnesses turned hostile, cross-case proceedings were not clubbed, and the injured accused’s version was not fairly evaluated, thereby compounding the deficiencies in the trial.

Quashing the convictions, the Supreme Court observed: “It is not possible to come to a conclusion that the guilt of the appellants/accused is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”

“We are of the considered opinion that guilt of the accused has not been proved… The impugned judgment is quashed and the appellants/accused are acquitted.”

As the appellants had already undergone between 9 to 14 years of imprisonment and had been on bail for nearly 12 years, the Court ordered cancellation of their bail bonds and formally closed the matter.

This judgment stands as a powerful restatement of fair trial principles, especially in murder trials where eyewitness evidence is paramount.

Date of Decision: May 14, 2025