Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
11. PW-3 (Virendra Singh) stated that in the afternoon of 24th March 2001, his father PW-1 (Shivraj Singh), brother deceased Narayan Singh, PW-8 (Rakesh Singh) and their relative Lakhan Singh were present in the medical shop. At that time, nine to ten persons armed with weapons like sword, poleaxe, rod and lathi came from the roadside and, while calling upon everyone to attack, assaulted the deceased Narayan Singh. Accused no.1 (Tukesh Singh) and accused no.8 (Tamesh Singh) assaulted deceased Narayan Singh with a sword. When the witness ran to save him, accused nos.1, 4, 6, 7 and 8 started assaulting him. Accused no.7 (Mangaldas) assaulted him on the nose with a poleaxe. Accused nos. 1 and 8 assaulted him on the head with a sword. He has ascribed a role to accused no.4 (Anil Singh) and accused no.6 (Pappu Singh) in the assault on him. Thereafter, the witness stated that accused no.9 (Ramesh Singh) assaulted deceased Manrakhan Singh on the head with a lathi. Accused no.3 (Baba alias Rajesh Singh) assaulted deceased Manrakhan Singh with a sword. Even accused no.2 (Basant Singh) and accused no.5 (Vishnu Singh) assaulted deceased Manrakhan Singh with a sword. The witness stated that both of them assaulted his father with a sword and a lathi. It is pertinent to note that even if, according to the case of the witness, he knew the accused, it was important for him to state that the accused present in the Court were the same accused whom the witness in his examination-in-chief had ascribed roles. However, he did not identify the accused in the Court, as in the examination-in-chief, he was not called upon to do so. [2025] 6 S.C.R. Tukesh Singh & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh
12. Even in his evidence, there are omissions which read thus: (i) Though he knew accused no.1 (Tukesh Singh) and accused no.4 (Anil Singh), he did not disclose their names in his Police statement; (ii) The fact that accused no.1 (Tukesh Singh) and accused no.8 (Tamesh Singh) assaulted the head of the deceased and accused no.4 (Anil Singh) assaulted with a rod on his back, has not been mentioned in his Police statement; and (iii) Accused no.2 (Basant Singh) and accused no.5 (Vishnu Singh) assaulted PW-1 (Shivraj Singh) with a sword and a lathi. This fact was not stated in his police statement. In the cross-examination, the witness admitted that on 28th March 2001, he did not give his complete statement. He admitted that he was unable to tell after how many days that he had given his remaining statement. Therefore, it is not clear when his further statement was recorded. That is not brought on record by the prosecution.
13. Now, we come to the evidence of PW-4 (Judawan Singh). He stated that PW-11 (Rajendra Singh) called him around 11 p.m. on 24th March 2001. Somebody knocked on the door and tried to take him out. In paragraph 7, the witness stated thus: “7. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Firstly, accused Tukesh Singh and Tamesh Singh assaulted Narayan Singh, again said, assaulted with sword, the said assault hit the neck of Narayan Singh, at that time when Manrakhan Singh, who was sitting there i.e. near the shop, ran towards that side to save, accused Ramesh Singh assaulted him with lathi on his head and thereafter, from his back Baba Singh assaulted on occipital region of head. Virendra Singh rushed to save him, then Tamesh, Tukesh Singh, Pappu, Mangaldas & Anil started assaulting him with sword and rod.” His statement was belatedly recorded on 14th April 2001, i.e. twenty- one days after the incident. Even this witness did not identify any accused in the Court by ascribing them a specific role. He merely stated that he knew all the accused present in the Court, and he named two of them. Even in the cross-examination of PW-4 (Judawan Singh), vital omissions have been brought on record. 276
14. The following significant omissions were brought on record in his cross-examination: (i) Accused no.9 (Ramesh Singh) assaulted on the head of deceased Manrakhan Singh with a lathi; (ii) Accused no.9 (Ramesh Singh) was holding a sword in one hand and a poleaxe in another; and (iii) Accused no.1 (Tukesh Singh) assaulted him on the head.
15. Now, we turn to the evidence of PW-5 (Visheshwar Singh Thakur). He described the incident of 24th March 2001. He stated that the prosecution witnesses and others were sitting in the medical store of PW-11 (Rajendra Singh). At that time, nine to ten persons armed with weapons like sword, poleaxe, lathi, rod, etc., came running from the side of the motorcycle garage of accused no.8 (Tamesh Singh). Accused no.1 (Tukesh Singh) and accused no.8 (Tamesh Singh) assaulted deceased Narayan Singh with a sword and a poleaxe. Even accused no.9 (Ramesh Singh) and accused no.3 (Baba alias Rajesh Singh) assaulted the deceased Manrakhan Singh with a sword and a lathi.
16. In the cross-examination, he admitted that his statement was belatedly recorded on 14th April 2001. The omissions brought on record in his cross-examination are as follows: (i) Accused no.1 (Tukesh Singh) and accused no.8 (Tamesh Singh) started assaulting PW-3 (Virendra Singh); (ii) Accused no.1 (Tukesh Singh) and accused no.8 (Tamesh Singh) assaulted deceased Narayan Singh with a sword and poleaxe; (iii) Accused no.9 (Ramesh Singh) and accused no.3 (Baba alias Rajesh Singh) assaulted deceased Manrakhan Singh with a sword and lathi; and (iv) Accused no.6 (Pappu Singh), accused no.4 (Anil Singh) and accused no.7 (Mangal Das) assaulted PW-3 (Virendra Singh). Again, to this witness, the accused were not shown in the Court for establishing their identity. PW-4 also stated that he knows all the accused present in the Court and names two of them.
17. In the cross-examination, he stated that his statement was recorded on 14th April 2001. There is a delay of twenty days in recording his [2025] 6 S.C.R. Tukesh Singh & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh statement, though he was available. In the cross-examination, the witness admitted that in the assault on deceased Manrakhan Singh, only accused no.3 (Baba alias Rajesh Singh) and accused no.9 (Ramesh Singh) were the participants.
18. Then, we come to the evidence of PW-8 (Rakesh Singh Thakur). His version in the examination-in-chief reads thus: “5. At about 12.30 in the noon, Narayan Singh came from Jalso. At about 1.45 p.m., Virendra Singh, Visheshwar Singh and his elder brother also came to the shop from Korba. After some time Rajendra Singh along with Kanhaiya Singh also came to medical store from Jalso. 6. On the direction of elders, Sukhnandan Singh, Rajendra Singh & Kanhaiya went to Police Station Masturi to lodge report regarding the incident occurred in the previous night. 2-3 minutes thereafter 9-10 persons armed with sword, polcaxe, lathi etc. came from the side of Ramesh Travels’ office and attacked on the persons sitting there, saying ‘attack-attack’. 7. On this accused Tamesh Singh & Tukesh Singh assaulted my elder maternal uncle Narayan Singh, who was returning after consuming betel, with the sword as a result he sustained injuries on his neck. Virendra Singh when tried to save him, Mangaldas, Pappu, Tamesh, Tukesh assaulted him with sword, lathi etc., as a result he sustained injuries over his head and his lips & nose were cut. Ramesh and Baba alias Rajesh started assaulting Manrakhan Singh, father-in-law of Rajendra Singh, with sword & lathi. Baba assaulted with sword and Ramesh assaulted with lathi. 8. Thereafter, Basant & Baba Singh assaulted my maternal grandfather Shivraj Singh and when I came out to save them, Baba, Basant & Tamesh Singh attacked on me, they assaulted me with sword and lathi as a result I sustained injuries over my head, back & shoulder.” Even in the case of this witness, he has not identified the accused in the Court in his examination-in-chief. In the cross-examination, the witness merely stated that he knows accused no.8 (Tamesh Singh) 278 and accused no.9 (Ramesh Singh), who were present in the Court and the other accused. However, he did not individually identify the accused. PW-8 (Rakesh Singh Thakur) lodged the Police report at about 8 p.m. 19. The following significant omissions were brought on record in his cross-examination: (i) He had told the names of three accused on the night of 23rd March 2001; (ii) Accused no.1 (Tukesh Singh) and accused no.8 (Tamesh Singh) assaulted PW-3 (Virendra Singh); and (iii) Accused no.8 (Tamesh Singh) assaulted PW-1 (Shivraj Singh). 20. As regards the PW-11 (Rajendra Singh), he is not an eyewitness. He only described the incident which occurred on 23rd March 2001. The evidence of this witness is not material. He is examined basically to prove what transpired on 16th March 2001 and 23rd March 2001. Again, he has not identified the accused in the Court. 21. 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. Another situation can be that the eyewitness did not know the accused before the incident. In the normal course, in case of the second situation, it is necessary to hold a Test Identification Parade. If it is not held and if the evidence of the 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 the Court by the eyewitness is of utmost importance. For example, if an eyewitness states in his deposition 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. If an eyewitness states that “he had seen one accused assaulting the deceased with a sword, another accused assaulting the deceased with a stick and another accused holding the deceased to enable other accused to assault the deceased.” In such a case, the eyewitness must identify the accused in the open [2025] 6 S.C.R. Tukesh Singh & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh Court who, according to him, had assaulted the accused with a stick, who had assaulted the deceased with a sword and who was holding the deceased. 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. 22. In the present case, in case of two eyewitnesses, in the cross- examination, it is brought on record that the accused persons named by them were sitting in the Court. However, they did not identify a particular accused by ascribing him a role. None of the eyewitnesses has specifically identified any of the accused in the Court. 23. In this 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. There are material omissions brought on record in the cross-examination of the eyewitnesses. They are so relevant that the same constitute contradictions in view of the explanation to Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The appellants/accused, before they were enlarged on bail, had undergone a minimum of nine to ten years of actual sentence. They have been on bail for about twelve years. 24. Considering the discussion made above, it is not possible to come to a conclusion that the guilt of the appellants/accused is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. As stated earlier, the versions of the eyewitnesses differ. 25. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that guilt of the accused has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. 26. Hence, the impugned judgment and order dated 10th September 2010 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur is, hereby, quashed and set aside and the appellants/accused are acquitted of the offences alleged against them. As the appellants/accused are on bail, their bail bonds stand cancelled. The appeals are, accordingly, allowed. Result of the case: Appeals allowed. †Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain