The Supreme Court recently emphasized that if a witness was familiar with the accused before the crime, it is crucial for the witness to identify the accused in court. Failure to do so significantly weakens the prosecution's case, leading to the acquittal of the accused in a 2001 murder case.
A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka, Pankaj Mithal, and Ahsanuddin Amanullah overturned the convictions of the accused, who had been found guilty by the Trial Court and the High Court under Sections 302 (murder) and 149 (unlawful assembly) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The acquittal was primarily based on the fact that five injured eyewitnesses, whose testimonies were crucial to the conviction, did not identify the accused in court.
Read Also:-Supreme Court Directs MCD to Vacate Lodhi-Era Tomb Office Immediately
The Court stated:
"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."
To clarify, the Court explained with an example that even if an eyewitness claims to have seen "A, B, and C" committing the crime, it is not enough unless the witness identifies these individuals in court as the same accused. This identification is vital to establish a direct link between the accused and the crime.
Background of the Case:
The case arose from a violent altercation that led to the deaths of two individuals. Nine accused were convicted by the Trial Court and the High Court under Sections 302 and 149 of the IPC, relying heavily on the testimonies of five injured eyewitnesses. According to the prosecution, the accused, armed with weapons like swords, axes, and iron rods, attacked the victims due to a property dispute involving a medical shop.
However, the witnesses failed to identify the accused in court, either by their faces or by their roles in the incident. This failure to identify was critical in the Supreme Court's decision to overturn the convictions.
The Supreme Court highlighted that the credibility of the witnesses was compromised because they did not clearly identify the accused in court.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Advises BJP Minister Vijay Shah To Speak Responsibly Amid Controversial Remarks On
Justice Oka, in the judgment, stated:
"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."
Furthermore, the Court found that the witnesses' statements to the police were missing critical details, such as weapon use and the specific roles of the accused. These omissions were considered significant contradictions under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Due to the prosecution's failure to establish the identity of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the convictions. The judgment underscores the importance of witness identification in court, especially when the witness is familiar with the accused before the crime.
Case Title: Tukesh Singh & Ors. versus State of Chhattisgarh
Appearance:
For Appellant(s) in Crl.A.No.1157/ Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. 2011 Mr. Mahesh Pandey, Adv. Mr. Mihir Joshi, Adv. Ms. Nishi Prabha Singh, Adv. Mr. Chandrika Prasad Mishra, Adv. Ms. Prashasti Singh, Adv. Ms. Mridula Ray Bharadwaj, AOR Ms. Swati Surbhi, Adv.
in Crl.A.No. 1713/2012 Mr. Rajesh Pandey, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Pandey, Adv. Mr. Mihir Joshi, Adv. Ms. Nishi Prabha Singh, Adv. Mr. Chandrika Prasad Mishra, Adv. Ms. Prashasti Singh, Adv. Ms. Mridula Ray Bharadwaj, AOR Ms. Swati Surbhi, Adv.
in Crl.A.No. 1608/2011 Mr. Sameer Shrivastava, AOR Ms. Yashika Varshney, Adv. Ms. Palak Mathur, Adv. Mrs. Priyanka Shrivastava, Adv.
For Respondent(s) State Mr. Praneet Pranav, D.A.G. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Standing Counsel, Adv. Ms. Kritika Yadav, Adv. Mr. Ravinder Kumar Yadav, AOR Mr. P.Amrut,Adv.
