‘Can’t convict one accused & acquit other in case of identical evidence’

New Delhi: Courts cannot convict an accused and acquit the other when there is identical evidence ascribing same or similar role, the Supreme Court has said while acquitting four people who were sentenced to 10 years in jail for alleged offences including dacoity with murder.

The apex court said in such a matter where evidence is identical, the cases of both the accused will be governed by the “principle of parity”, which means the courts cannot make a distinction between the two as it will amount to discrimination.

A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Sanjay Karol acquitted one of the accused while recalling the top court’s May 11, 2018 order that had summarily dismissed his plea challenging a Gujarat High Court verdict.

The high court had confirmed the conviction of seven accused in the case but reduced the sentence from life term to 10 years. The apex court also set aside the conviction of two accused, who had not preferred any appeal against the high court verdict, noting that “suo motu exercise of powers under Article 136 is warranted” as it was a question of their liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.

While Article 136 of the Constitution deals with the power of the apex court to grant special leave to appeal in cases, Article 21 pertains to protection of life and personal liberty.

The bench noted the apex court had acquitted three accused in August 2018, while the plea by another accused was dismissed in May 2018.

It delivered its verdict while dealing with the appeal filed by Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi against the high court verdict.

‘When there is similar or identical evidence of eyewitnesses against two accused by ascribing them the same or similar role, the court cannot convict one accused and acquit the other. In such a case, the cases of both the accused will be governed by the principle of parity,’ the apex court said in its verdict delivered on Wednesday.

‘This principle means that the criminal court should decide like cases alike, and in such cases, the court cannot make a distinction between the two accused, which will amount to discrimination,’ it said.

Dealing with the case of Qureshi, the bench noted that two prosecution witnesses, who were claimed to be the eye-witnesses, were police constables and had claimed that a mob of around 1,000 to 1,500 people had gathered at the

spot in Ahmedabad when the incident took place in November 2003.