Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi vs The State of Gujarat
Background
During communal violence in Ahmedabad's Shah Alam area in 2003, a mob of 1,000-1,500 people attacked passers-by: a two-wheeler rider was assaulted, an auto-rickshaw passenger's gold chain was snatched, and one man (Mukesh) was killed. Thirteen people were prosecuted; seven were convicted, including the appellant (accused no. 6), for offences including robbery, arson, and murder-related charges under the Indian Penal Code, with sentences later reduced to 10 years by the High Court. The appellant's conviction rested solely on one eyewitness (a chain-snatching victim) who identified him in court about two years after the incident, without any prior test identification parade. Separately, three other convicted co-accused had already been acquitted by the Supreme Court in an earlier, related appeal because the testimony of two police-constable eyewitnesses against them was found unreliable.
Decision Breakdown
The Court held that while a conviction can rest on a single credible witness, this particular witness's identification was unsafe. She didn't know the appellant beforehand, there were 50-100 people in the mob around her, the incident lasted only seconds, no test identification parade was conducted, and two years had passed before she identified him in court. With no corroboration, the conviction could not stand, and the appellant was acquitted. Additionally, invoking the principle of "parity" (treating similarly-placed accused alike) and its own rare suo motu power under Article 136, the Court extended the same acquittal benefit to two other convicted co-accused (nos. 3 and 4) who had never even appealed, since they were convicted on the same unreliable witness testimony that had already led to other co-accused being acquitted, and separately recalled an earlier dismissal order to acquit yet another co-accused (no. 2) on the same reasoning.
Lesson Learnt
An eyewitness identification made in court long after the crime, by someone who didn't know the accused beforehand and had no meaningful opportunity to observe them clearly (especially in a large chaotic crowd), is inherently weak evidence unless backed by a proper identification parade or other corroboration; and courts can, and should, extend an acquittal to similarly situated co-accused even if they never appealed, to avoid the injustice of punishing people identically situated differently.