“Court Cannot Convict One Accused And Acquit The Other When Similar Or Identical Evidence Is Pitted Against Two Accused Persons,” Supreme Court.

On September 23, 2024, the Supreme Court (SC) of India ruled that the court cannot convict one accused and acquit the other when there is similar or identical evidence pitted against two accused persons. The SC bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Aravind Kumar observed the same and acquitted the accused (appellant) after finding that other co-accused, charged with similar offences, had been acquitted of all charges. While delivering the judgment, the SC bench referred to various existing judgments including the Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi vs. State of Gujarat which held that “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. 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.”

In this case, the prosecution argued that the appellant had wrongfully and illegally facilitated the issuance of a second passport in favor of accused No., 1, who already holds an Indian passport. It was alleged that Accused No. 1 had deposited his passport with his employer in Dubai and applied for a second passport to have better employment opportunities. The application was forwarded/ routed through the appellant. Other accused persons connived with the appellant in procuring a second passport for Accused No. 1. The SC bench was hearing the appellant’s (accused no. 2) challenge, the concurrent conviction and sentence ordered under Section 420 Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 12(2) of the Passports Act, 1967 and sentenced to one-year rigorous imprisonment for each of the offences which are to run concurrently. After hearing the contentions, the SC observed, “...the prosecution had failed to place on record any evidence to prove that appellant had any previous knowledge of accused No.1 was already possessing a passport. In the absence of any cogent evidence placed in this regard and accused Nos. 1 and 3 to 5 having been acquitted of the offences alleged, the conviction and order of sentence imposed against the appellant alone cannot be sustained or in other words it has to be held that prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.”

The Supreme Court bench concluded, “For the reasons afore-stated the appeal succeeds and appellant-accused No.2 is acquitted of the offences alleged against her. The judgment of the Trial Court passed…by the High Court of Madras at Madurai Bench dated 18.08.2011 are hereby set aside. The bail bonds of the appellant stand canceled. The appeal stands allowed in the above terms.”