The Division Bench of the Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, citing unreliable identification, and extended acquittal to the co-accused based on parity and justice, emphasizing credible evidence and equitable legal application in criminal trials.
Brief Fact of Case:
The case, Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi vs. State of Gujarat, involves an incident that occurred on November 7, 2003, during which a large gathering of approximately 1,000 to 1,500 people had assembled and various criminal acts took place including assaults on individuals, theft, and the burning of a two-wheeler. Tragically, an individual named Mukesh was assaulted by the mob and later found dead in a nearby lake. A total of 13 individuals were prosecuted for their involvement in these offenses.
The appellant, Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi, was one of the accused in the case. He was charged with several offenses under the Indian Penal Code, including Section 396, Section 395, Section 307, Section 435, and Section 201. The case went through trial in the lower court, which resulted in the conviction of seven accused, including the appellant, for their respective roles in the offenses. Subsequently, the appellant filed an appeal challenging his conviction.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court of India, in its judgment, found the identification of the appellant unreliable and extended the benefit of acquittal to some of the accused based on principles of parity and justice. This case underscores the importance of reliable evidence and the fair application of legal principles in criminal trials.
Contentions of Prosecution:
The prosecution contended that the accused, including Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi, were correctly identified by the eyewitness, PW-2 Gitaben. Gitaben testified that she had seen the accused participating in criminal acts during the gathering in Shah Alam on the day of the incident. The prosecution argued that there was circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the crimes committed during the gathering. This included the fact that the accused were present at the scene and were seen by Gitaben and other witnesses engaged in criminal activities. The prosecution presented medical and forensic evidence to support the charges against the accused, such as the cause of death of the victim Mukesh, and the injuries sustained by other individuals during the incident. The prosecution contended that the accused should be convicted under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Section 396 (dacoity with murder), Section 395 (dacoity), Section 307 (attempt to murder), Section 435 (mischief by fire), and Section 201 (causing disappearance of evidence).
Contentions of Defense:
The defense argued that the identification of the accused, especially Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi, by Gitaben was unreliable. They pointed out that Gitaben did not know the accused prior to the incident, and her identification was made in challenging circumstances during the chaotic gathering. The defense contended that there was a lack of direct evidence linking the accused to the crimes. They argued that the case relied heavily on the testimony of a single eyewitness, Gitaben, and that her identification was not sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense urged the court to give the benefit of doubt to the accused, emphasizing the principle that in criminal cases, if there is any reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, they should be acquitted. The defense also raised legal arguments related to the principles of corroboration and the need for reliable and credible evidence to secure a conviction.
Observation of Court:
Seven of the accused, including the appellant, were convicted on various charges, such as Section 396, Section 395, Section 307, Section 435, and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The maximum sentence imposed was life imprisonment under Section 396 read with Section 149 of IPC. The appellant appealed against his conviction. The High Court confirmed the convictions of the accused but reduced the sentence for the appellant to 10 years. Appeals by other convicted accused were also considered and decided by the High Court.
The Court examined the reliability of the evidence provided by PW-2, the sole eyewitness who identified the appellant. The Court found several factors casting doubt on the identification: PW-2 did not know the appellant. The appellant was part of a large, aggressive mob, making it unlikely for PW-2 to remember his face accurately. No test identification parade was conducted. There was minimal time available for PW-2 to observe the appellant's features during the chaotic incident.
The Court cited the legal principle that the conviction based on the testimony of a single eyewitness could be upheld in certain circumstances but that corroboration was essential when the reliability of the identification was in doubt. The Court also noted that accused nos. 1, 5, and 13 were acquitted by the High Court because their identification by PW-25 and PW-26 was considered unreliable, and no test identification parade was conducted for accused nos. 1 and 5. As a result, the Court extended the benefit of acquittal to accused nos. 2, 3, and 4, who had similar identifications based on the testimonies of PW-25 and PW-26. The Court applied the principle of parity.
Decision of the Court:
The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment, considered these contentions and found that the identification of the appellant (Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi) was unreliable, leading to the acquittal of some of the accused based on principles of justice and fairness. The case highlights the importance of both reliable evidence and the fair application of legal principles in criminal trials.
Case Title: Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi vs. State of Gujarat
Case No: Criminal Appeal No.1012 of 2022
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 723 SC
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Mr. Abhay S. Oka, Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Karol
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
;
Picture Source :
