Supreme Court of India· 14 May 2025

Under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, where an eyewitness claims to have known the accused before the assault, is naming the accused in the police statement and deposition enough, or must the eyewitness also identify the accused present in Court?

Tukesh Singh & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh

2025 INSC 683 · Criminal Appeal No.1157 of 2011
Coram: Abhay S. Oka

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow s.302/149 Indian Penal Code, 1860 📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

Naming the accused is not enough. An eyewitness who claims to have known the accused before the incident must still identify the accused present in Court as the very persons he saw committing the offence; unless this is done, the prosecution cannot establish that the accused before the Court are the same persons named in the deposition.

Headnote

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss.147, 148, 302/149, 307/149 — Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.162 Explanation — Identification of accused in Court — Omissions as contradictions — Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.162 Explanation — Identification in Court and omissions as contradictions — Held: An eyewitness who claims to have known the accused before the incident must still identify the accused present in Court as the very persons whom he saw committing the offence. Material omissions brought out in cross-examination, touching the specific weapon and role attributed to each accused, constitute contradictions in view of the Explanation to Section 162, weakening the eyewitness evidence. (¶21, 23) Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss.302/149, 307/149 — Proof beyond reasonable doubt — Acquittal — Held further: Where none of the eyewitnesses, though each knew the accused before the incident, identifies them in Court, and their versions differ in material particulars, the guilt of the accused is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment of conviction under Sections 302 and 307, both read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, is accordingly quashed and set aside, and the appellants stand acquitted of the offences alleged against them. (¶25, 26)

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 21In 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 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.

Acts & Sections

s.302/149 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.307/149 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.162 (Explanation) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s.147 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.148 Indian Penal Code, 1860

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of Tukesh Singh & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, when do omissions in a witness's police statement amount to contradictions usable against the prosecution under the Explanation to Section 162?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections