Court Cannot Convict One Accused & Acquit The Other When There Is Similar Or Identical Evidence Pitted Against Them: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has reiterated that courts cannot convict one accused and acquit the other when there is similar or identical evidence pitted against two accused persons.
The Court acquitted the appellant who was convicted of abetment in procuring a second passport for a person under Section 420 of the IPC and Section 12(2) of the Passports Act, 1967 (the Act). The prosecution had alleged that the appellant had forwarded the application for a second passport.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Aravind Kumar observed, “The Court cannot convict one accused and acquit the other when there is similar or identical evidence pitted against two accused persons.”
Advocate M. Yogesh Kanna represented the appellant, while ASG Aishwarya Bhati appeared for the respondent.
The prosecution alleged that the appellant, who was charged with facilitating the issuance of a second passport a person, who already possessed an Indian passport. Two other employees at the Passport Office were also implicated in facilitating the illegal issuance of the second passport. However, these two were acquitted and the CBI did not challenge the same.
The prosecution further submitted that the second passport was returned to the Passport Office, where it was illegally obtained by the appellant through the involvement of two other accused. A demand for Rs. 5,000 was allegedly made by the appellant to hand over the passport, which was refused, leading the appellant to return the passport to the office by registered post.
During the trial, the appellant was convicted under Section 420 of the IPC and Section 12(1)(b) and 12(2) of the Act. The appellant challenged the concurrent conviction and sentence of one-year rigorous imprisonment for each offence and argued that her conviction could not stand given the acquittal of her co-accused under similar charges.
The Supreme Court referred to the decision in Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v. State of Gujarat wherein the Supreme Court held that 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.
Therefore, the Court stated, “In the case on hand, allegations against the appellant being the same as made against Accused No.3 & 4, the Courts below could not have convicted the Appellant while acquitting the other two.”
The Court noted that there was no direct incriminating information that emanated from the evidence against the Appellant. The Court noted that all that was deposed was that the appellant was present then the application was being filled out.
Consequently, the Court observed, “In other words, 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 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.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal.
Cause Title: Yogarani v. State By The Inspector Of Police (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 721)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates M. Yogesh Kanna, S. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Manoj Kumar A and Vasu Kalra; AOR Raghunatha Sethupathy B
Respondent: ASG Aishwarya Bhati; AOR Mukesh Kumar Maroria; Advocates Shraddha Deshmukh, Rajnish Prasad, Udai Khanna and Nithin Choudhary Pavuluri
