Can't Convict One Accused & Acquit Another When Similar Evidence Was Pitted Against Them : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the court cannot convict one accused and acquit another when similar or identical evidence is pitted against two accused persons.

While holding so, the Court acquitted the accused/appellant after finding that other co-accused who were charged for similar offences had been acquitted of all the charges and no appeal had been filed challenging their acquittal.

Referring to Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v State of Gujarat 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 782, the Court observed, "The Court cannot convict one accused and acquit the other when there is similar or identical evidence pitted against two accused persons."

The case of the prosecution was that an appellant had illegally facilitated the issuance of a second passport in favor of accused No.1. Accused No.1 who held an Indian Passport had deposited the same with his employer in Dubai and in search of better employment opportunities had clandestinely applied for second passport through the appellant and other accused persons had connived with the appellant in procuring second passport to Accused No.1.

The court had acquitted other co-accused after the prosecution failed to prove the allegation that they handed over the second passport at the instance of the appellant to him.

Noting that the allegations against the appellant are the same as made against other co-accused, the bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and Aravind Kumar observed that the Courts below could not have convicted the Appellant while acquitting the other.

The Court gave the benefit of the doubt to the appellant since the prosecution was not able to prove the allegation that the appellant had knowingly furnished false information or suppressed known material information with the intent of securing a passport or travel document to a person and thereby had abetted in the commission of an offence punishable under Section 12(1) and thereby punishable under Section 12(2) of the Passports Act.

“the prosecution had failed to place on record any evidence to prove that appellant had any previous knowledge of accused No.1 was already possessing a passport. In the absence of any cogent evidence placed in this regard and accused Nos. 1 and 3 to 5 (co-accused) having been acquitted of the offences alleged, the conviction and order of sentence imposed against the appellant alone cannot be sustained or in other words it has to be held that prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.”, the court held.

Accordingly, the impugned judgment convicting the appellant was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

The appeal was allowed.

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) Mr. M.Yogesh Kanna, Adv. Mr. S. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv. Mr. Raghunatha Sethupathy B, AOR Mr. Manoj Kumar A, Adv. Mr. Vasu Kalra, Adv. Ms. Monica Saini, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Ms. Shraddha Deshmukh, Adv. Mr. Rajnish Prasad, Adv. Mr. Udai Khanna, Adv. Mr. Nithin Choudhary Pavuluri, Adv.

Case Title: YOGARANI VERSUS STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, Criminal Appeal No. 477/2017

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 731

Click here to read/download the judgment