Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Rioting Case Citing Lack of Reliable Evidence: Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi vs. State of Gujarat (2023)

Date of the Judgment: 13 September 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 829

Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Sanjay Karol, J.

In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India addressed the critical issue of witness identification in a rioting case. Can a conviction stand when the sole identifying witness recognizes the accused for the first time in court, years after the incident, without any prior identification parade? The Court examined this question in a case where the accused was convicted based on the testimony of a single witness. The bench comprised Justices Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, with the judgment authored by Justice Abhay S. Oka.

Case Background

The case stems from an incident that occurred on November 7, 2003, in the Shah Alam area of Ahmedabad. According to the prosecution, a large crowd of approximately 1,000 to 1,500 people had gathered. The mob stopped several individuals passing through the area, including PW-1 Baldev, whose two-wheeler was burned. They also stopped an auto-rickshaw, forcing the passengers to alight. PW-2 Gitaben Bhailal, a passenger in the auto-rickshaw, had her necklace snatched. PW-3 Hemubhai, who was carrying LPG cylinders on a bicycle, was also assaulted. Additionally, PW-13 Ajay, along with Mukesh, was attacked; Mukesh’s body was later found in a nearby lake.

The Trial Court convicted seven out of thirteen accused, including the present appellant, accused no. 6, for offences under Sections 396 (dacoity with murder), 395 (dacoity), 307 (attempt to murder), 435 (mischief by fire), and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) read with Section 149 (unlawful assembly) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The High Court, while upholding the conviction, reduced the sentence to 10 years imprisonment.

Timeline

Arguments

The appellant’s counsel, acting as Amicus Curiae, argued that the conviction was primarily based on the testimony of PW-2 Gitaben, who identified the appellant as the person who snatched her gold chain. The counsel highlighted that PW-2 did not know the appellant prior to the incident, and her identification in court, approximately two years after the event, was questionable, especially given the presence of 50-100 people in the mob. Furthermore, a test identification parade was not conducted.

The counsel also pointed out that accused nos. 3 and 4 were convicted based on the testimony of PW-25 and PW-26, whose testimonies were discarded by the Supreme Court in the case of accused nos. 1, 5 and 13. Therefore, the benefit of the judgment should be extended to accused nos. 2, 3, and 4 as well.

The respondent’s counsel argued that PW-2 had clearly identified the appellant and ascribed the role of snatching her gold chain to him. They contended that two years was not a long time, and that PW-2, being a woman, would not forget the face of the person who snatched her chain. The respondent also argued that the conviction of accused nos. 2, 3, and 4 had become final and should not be interfered with.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following key issues:

1. Whether the conviction of the appellant can be sustained based on the sole testimony of PW-2, given the circumstances of the case.
2. Whether the benefit of acquittal granted to accused nos. 1, 5, and 13 should be extended to accused nos. 2, 3, and 4, who were convicted based on similar evidence.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Vadivelu Thevar & Anr. v. State of Madras [AIR 1957 SC 614]* to highlight that while a conviction can be based on a single witness, the quality of the evidence must be reliable.
• The Court applied Musa Khan & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1976 SC 2566]* to emphasize that mere presence in a mob does not equate to guilt without a shared common object.
• The Court referred to Pawan Kumar vs. State of Haryana [(2003) 11 SCC 241]* to justify the exercise of its suo motu powers under Article 136 of the Constitution.
• The Court used Harbans Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors. [(1982) 2 SCC 101]* to emphasize the principle of parity and to avoid injustice.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the unreliability of the sole witness’s testimony and the principle of parity. The Court emphasized that the identification of the appellant by PW-2 was doubtful due to several factors: PW-2 did not know the appellant before the incident, the appellant was part of a large and aggressive mob, no identification parade was conducted, and the identification took place in court two years after the incident. The Court also noted that the same witnesses whose testimonies were discarded in the case of accused nos. 1, 5, and 13 were used to convict accused nos. 2, 3, and 4. The Court held that it would be a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution if the benefit of acquittal was not extended to accused nos. 2, 3, and 4.

Fact:Law

Logical Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning was that the testimony of PW-2 was not wholly reliable and required corroboration, which was absent. The Court also reasoned that if the benefit of acquittal was not extended to accused nos. 2, 3, and 4, it would amount to a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.

The court considered alternative interpretations of the evidence but rejected them due to the lack of reliability in the witness testimony and the need for parity. The final decision was reached by applying the principles of law to the facts of the case and ensuring that justice was served.

The Court stated, “Considering the nature of the testimony of PW-2, it cannot be said that the evidence of PW-2 is wholly reliable.” The Court also noted, “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.” Furthermore, the Court emphasized, “If we fail to grant relief to accused no 2, the rights guaranteed to accused no. 2 under Article 21 of the Constitution of India will be violated.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The decision was unanimous.

Key Takeaways

• Reliability of Witness Testimony: The judgment underscores the importance of reliable witness testimony in criminal cases. Identification of an accused for the first time in court, after a significant time lapse, without a prior identification parade, is generally considered doubtful.
• Principle of Parity: The principle of parity is crucial in ensuring that similarly situated accused persons are treated equally under the law.
• Suo Motu Powers: The Supreme Court’s suo motu powers under Article 136 of the Constitution can be invoked to prevent injustice and protect fundamental rights.
• Protection of Fundamental Rights: The judgment highlights the importance of safeguarding the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, particularly the right to life and personal liberty.
• Implications for Future Cases: This judgment sets a precedent for cases involving the identification of accused persons in mob violence and emphasizes the need for corroborative evidence when relying on a single witness.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

• The appellant, Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi, was acquitted.
• Accused nos. 3 and 4 were acquitted.
• The order in the special leave petition filed by accused no. 2 was recalled, and he was also acquitted.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There are no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction cannot be solely based on the testimony of a single witness who identifies the accused for the first time in court, after a significant time lapse, especially in the absence of a prior identification parade. The judgment also reinforces the principle of parity, ensuring that similarly situated accused persons are treated equally. This case clarifies that the benefit of a judgment acquitting some accused based on the unreliability of certain witnesses must be extended to other accused convicted on the basis of the same unreliable witnesses. There is no change in the previous position of law, but it clarifies its application.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi vs. State of Gujarat is a significant ruling that emphasizes the importance of reliable witness testimony and the principle of parity in criminal cases. The Court acquitted the appellant and other accused, highlighting the need for corroborative evidence and the protection of fundamental rights. This judgment serves as a reminder that convictions cannot be sustained on doubtful evidence and that the law must be applied equally to all.