The Supreme Court of India held Wednesday that courts cannot reach different verdicts for two or more criminal defendants if the evidence against them is nearly identical.

A bench comprised of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol made this observation in the case of Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi vs State of Gujrat. The court held:

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.

The case pertained to an incident that occurred in Ahmedabad on November 7, 2003 where a mob became unruly, assaulted multiple people and killed one person. 13 individuals were prosecuted in connection with these incidents. Accused numbers 1 to 6 and 13 were initially convicted for various offenses under the Indian Penal Code, including dacoity (robbery by multiple people) resulting in murder. Accused number 6, or Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi, who is also the appellant in this case, initially received a sentence of life imprisonment but was later sentenced to 10 years in prison. Importantly, the evidence against all the accused individuals was fundamentally identical.

The Supreme Court observed that, in light of this common evidence, it should similarly apply the benefit of acquittal to the other accused individuals, even if they have not personally approached the Supreme Court with their appeals, when it is extended to one accused.

Specifically, in the cases of Allarakha (Accused No. 3) and Ikbalhusain (Accused No. 4), the court invoked its ability to take unilateral action under Article 136 of the Constitution to safeguard the accused’s fundamental liberties guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.

Furthermore, in May 2018, the Supreme Court summarily dismissed Accused No. 2’s Special Leave Petition (SLP), which is a request to have his case heard by the court. However, in August 2018, the court allowed the appeals of three other accused individuals—Accused Nos. 1, 5, and 13—leading to their acquittal. 

Significantly, the court granted relief to all the accused, noting that Accused Nos. 3 and 4 had not filed any appeals. Despite this, it emphasized that it should treat them on par with Accused Nos. 1, 5, and 13, whom the Supreme Court had previously acquitted. It emphasized that Accused No. 2 must receive the benefit of parity. Notably, Accused No. 2 contested his conviction before the apex court in 2018, but the apex court dismissed his SLP without recording reasons. In the present case, the Supreme Court set aside the 2018 order while considering the matter.