Tukesh Singh vs State of Chhattisgarh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 824

ABHAY S. OKA, PANKAJ MITHAL, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
Tukesh Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Dr. Rajesh Pandey, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Pandey, Adv. Mr. Mihar Joshi, Adv. Ms. Ayushi Pandey, Adv. Ms. Shivani Sharma, Adv. Mr. Chandrika Prashad Mishra, Adv. Ms. Neha Ahlawat, Adv. Ms. Mridula Ray Bharadwaj, AOR Mr. Sameer Shrivastava, AOR Ms. Yashika Varshney, Adv. Ms. Palak Mathur, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Praneet Pranav, D.A.G. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Standing Counsel, Adv. Mr. Ravinder Kumar Yadav, AOR

JUDGMENT :

(ABHAY S. OKA, J.)

FACTUAL ASPECTS

1. These appeals take exception to the judgment dated 10th September 2010 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh. A total of nine accused were prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307, read with Section 149 and Section 302, read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’). The Trial Court convicted them under the aforesaid sections. For the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC, the sentence of life imprisonment was imposed. The present appellants are accused nos.1 to 8. They and accused no.9 (Ramesh Singh) had preferred an appeal before the High Court. By the impugned judgment, the High Court confirmed the judgment of the Sessions Court.

2. One Kashiram Rathore, a resident of a place called Masturi, had borrowed a certain amount from one Ganpat Singh. As he could not repay the loan, he gave his shop and the land adjacent to it to Ganpat Singh, who, in turn, gave the shop to his relative Rajendra Singh (PW-11) and opened a medical store through him. After commencing business, PW-11 purchased the shop and the adjacent vacant land from Kashiram by way of a Sale