The Supreme Court of India declared on Wednesday that courts should not arrive at differing decisions for two or more criminal defendants if the evidence against them is nearly identical. This observation was made by a bench comprising of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol in the case of Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi vs State of Gujrat.
The case centered around an incident that transpired in Ahmedabad on November 7, 2003 where a disorderly mob assaulted several individuals and resulted in one death. Thirteen people were prosecuted in relation to this occurrence. Accused individuals 1 to 6 and 13 were initially convicted for various offenses under the Indian Penal Code, including dacoity (robbery involving multiple offenders) which resulted in murder. Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi, also known as Accused number 6 and the appellant in the case, initially received a life sentence which was later adjusted to 10 years in prison.
The court highlighted that the evidence against all the accused was fundamentally identical. Therefore, the court should likewise extend the advantage of acquittal to other defendants, even if they have not personally approached the Supreme Court with their appeals, when it is extended to one defendant.
In the cases of Allarakha (Accused No. 3) and Ikbalhusain (Accused No. 4), the court used its authority via Article 136 of the Constitution to protect the accused’s fundamental liberties guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.
In summary, every accused individual was granted relief. The court observed that even though Accused Nos. 3 and 4 had not filed any appeals, they should be treated equally with Accused Nos. 1, 5, and 13, who were previously acquitted by the Supreme Court. Notably, Accused No. 2 appealed his conviction before the Apex Court in 2018, but the court dismissed his case. In the current case, the Supreme Court reversed the 2018 order in light of this consideration.
The complete text can be read here.