In a significant ruling on criminal trial procedure, the Supreme Court has held that evidence recorded during the trial of a co-accused cannot automatically be used against an accused who was arrested years later unless the court had first passed a valid order under Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Finding that this mandatory safeguard had not been followed, the Court acquitted a man who had been convicted in a 1999 murder case.
Background of the Case
The appeal arose from the conviction of Mahendra Singh, who was prosecuted in connection with the murder of a person in Chhattisgarh on April 1, 1999. According to the prosecution, two persons were accused in the case. While one accused faced trial immediately, Mahendra Singh allegedly remained absconding for several years before being arrested in September 2017.
During the earlier trial, the co-accused was acquitted. However, one of the key eyewitnesses (PW-1), who had testified in that proceeding, died before Mahendra Singh's separate trial began. The trial court relied on PW-1's earlier testimony to convict Mahendra Singh, and the High Court later upheld that conviction.
Mahendra Singh challenged the conviction before the Supreme Court, arguing that the earlier testimony could not legally be read against him because the requirements of Section 299 CrPC had never been fulfilled.
Court's Observations
A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran examined the scope of Section 299 CrPC, which permits courts to record evidence in the absence of an absconding accused under limited circumstances.
The Court referred to earlier Supreme Court decisions interpreting the provision and explained that Section 299 creates a narrow exception to the general rule that every accused has the right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses.
The Bench observed:
"The right or opportunity to cross-examine a witness deposing against one is an indefeasible right to that person which is non-negotiable."
The Court clarified that before evidence can be recorded under Section 299, the trial court must first reach a clear finding on two conditions:
- The accused is absconding; and
- There is no immediate prospect of arresting the accused.
Both conditions must exist together, and the court must record its satisfaction before proceeding under the provision.
The Bench further explained that even after such evidence is recorded, it can later be used only if the witness has died, become incapable of giving evidence, cannot be found, or cannot reasonably be produced before the court.
As the Court stated:
"The order under Section 299 has to conclusively find proof of both the jurisdictional facts for invocation of Section 299."
Why the Conviction Could Not Stand
Applying these principles, the Supreme Court found that no order under Section 299 had been passed either when the case was committed to the Sessions Court or when the co-accused's trial commenced in 1999.
Although PW-1 had died by the time Mahendra Singh faced trial, the earlier testimony could not be relied upon because the mandatory statutory procedure had never been followed at the relevant stage.
The Bench also noted that the remaining eyewitnesses either turned hostile or failed to identify Mahendra Singh during the later proceedings, leaving the prosecution without legally admissible evidence sufficient to sustain the conviction.
Supreme Court's Decision
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish the legal foundation required for relying on the earlier testimony of the deceased witness.
The Bench concluded that, in the absence of a valid order under Section 299 CrPC, the evidence recorded during the earlier proceedings could not be used against Mahendra Singh in his separate trial. Consequently, the Court acquitted him of all charges and directed that he be released if still in custody.
If already on bail, his bail bonds were ordered to stand cancelled. Pending applications were also disposed of.
Case Details
Case Title: Mahendra Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 3566 of 2026 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 6741 of 2026)
Judges: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Decision Date: July 31, 2026
