Mahendra Singh vs State of Chhattisgarh

In this case, a man named Mahendra Singh was accused of a murder committed in 1999. He ran away (absconded) while the co-accused was tried and acquitted. He was arrested 18 years later, in 2017. By then, the main eyewitness (PW1) had died, and other witnesses had either turned hostile or could not identify him. The trial court and the High Court convicted him by relying on the statement of the deceased witness (PW1) recorded during the 1999 trial of the co-accused. The Supreme Court set aside this conviction. It explained that under Section 299 of the CrPC, a court can use a deceased witness's past statement against an absconding accused only if a specific order was passed during the earlier trial. This order must conclusively prove two facts: first, that the accused is hiding (absconding), and second, that there is no immediate hope of arresting him. Since no such order was passed in 1999, the past statement of the deceased witness could not be legally used. Depriving an accused of the right to cross-examine a witness is a major step that requires strict legal procedures. Since there was no other reliable evidence, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted Mahendra Singh.

In 1999, Mahendra Singh allegedly strangled a man to death and then ran away to avoid arrest, while his co-accused was tried and acquitted. Mahendra was finally arrested 18 years later, in 2017, and put on trial. However, by this time, the main eyewitness had died, and other witnesses refused to support the prosecution's case.

The Supreme Court acquitted Mahendra Singh, ruling that the deceased witness's 1999 statement could not be used against him. The Court found that the trial court in 1999 had not passed a formal order declaring Mahendra an absconder, which is a mandatory legal requirement under Section 299 of the CrPC to preserve and use such evidence later.

This judgment protects a citizen's fundamental right to a fair trial, particularly the right to cross-examine witnesses who speak against them. It highlights that the police and courts must strictly follow legal procedures; they cannot use shortcuts or bypass safeguards to convict someone, even in serious cases like murder.