JAVED SHAUKAT ALI QURESHI versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [2023] 12 S.C.R. 220 · Decided: 13-09-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY S. OKA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

CASE DETAILS
JAVED SHAUKAT ALI QURESHI
v.
STATE OF GUJARAT
(Criminal Appeal No. 1012 of 2022)
SEPTEMBER 13, 2023
[ABHAY S. OKA AND SANJAY KAROL, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Assault by mob, Seven accused were 
convicted, including the present appellant-accused no.6, for the oﬀ ences 
punishable u/s. 396 r/w. s.149, s.395 r/w. s.149, s.307 r/w. s.149, s.435 
r/w. s.149 and s.201 r/w. s.149 of the IPC. Accused nos. 1, 5 and 13 
were acquitted in appeal by the Supreme Court. (a) Whether conviction 
of appellant-accused no.6 justiﬁ ed; (b) Whether conviction of accused 
no. 2, 3, 4 was justiﬁ ed, when role ascribed to them was that they were 
part of mob.
Evidence – Conviction of appellant-accused no.6 based on sole 
testimony of PW-2 – Propriety:
Held: Considering the nature of the testimony of PW-2, it cannot 
be said that the evidence of PW-2 is wholly reliable – The identiﬁ cation 
of the appellant for the ﬁ rst time in the Court after a lapse of about 
two years becomes doubtful for more than one reason – Firstly, the 
appellant was not known to PW-2 – Secondly, the appellant was part of 
a large aggressive mob of 50 to 100 people which surrounded the auto-
rickshaw – Thirdly, there was no identiﬁ cation parade held – Fourthly, 
there was no time available to PW-2 to note the distinctive features of 
the appellant – Hence, it is very unsafe to record a conclusion based only 
on the testimony of the solitary witness that the guilt of the appellant 
was proved beyond a reasonable doubt – Even if the evidence of PW-2 
is categorized as “neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable,” the 
appellant cannot be convicted only based on the sole testimony of 
PW-2 unless there is a corroboration to the version of PW-2 either by 
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 220 : 2023 INSC 829
220
221
direct or circumstantial evidence – Such a corroboration is completely 
absent in this case – Therefore, the conviction of the appellant cannot 
be sustained. [Para 8]
Penal Code, 1860 – Conviction of accused nos. 2, 3, 4 – Propriety:
Held: The conviction of accused nos. 1, 5 and 13 was based only 
on the testimony of PW-25 and PW-26 – The Supreme Court had in 
its earlier decision rejected the testimony of PW-25 and PW-26 in its 
entirety – Assuming that PW-25 and PW-26 identiﬁ ed accused nos.2, 3 
and 4 by stating that they were members of the mob; once a Coordinate 
Bench of the Supreme Court discards their testimony in its entirety being 
unreliable, the beneﬁ t of the said ﬁ nding will have to be extended to the 
accused nos.2, 3, and 4 as they are similarly placed with accused nos.1,5 
and 13 – Therefore, the conviction of accused nos.2, 3 and 4 set aside. 
[Paras 11, 12 and 14]
Evidence – Similar or identical evidence of eyewitnesses against 
accused persons – Principle of parity:
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. [Para 15]
Constitution of India – Suo moto exercise of jurisdiction 
u/Art.136:
Held: The testimony of PW-25 and PW-26 was rejected – 
Consequent to which, accused nos.1, 5 and 13 were acquitted – The case 
of accused nos. 3 and 4 stands on the same footing as accused nos. 1,5 
and 13 – They must get the beneﬁ t of parity – Accused nos.3 and 4 did 
not prefer any appeal – In the case of Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, 
Supreme Court dealt with similar contingency in some detail – The Court 
held that the jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India 
can be invoked in favour of the party even suo moto when the Court 
is satisﬁ ed that compelling ground for its exercise exists – However, 
JAVED SHAUKAT ALI QURESHI v. STATE OF GUJARAT
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 12 S.C.R.
222
such suo moto power should be used very sparingly with caution and 
circumspection – The Court held that the power must be exercised in 
the rarest of the rare cases. [Para 16]
Practice and Procedure:
Held: Earlier special leave petition ﬁ led by accused no.2 was 
summarily dismissed without recording any reasons – The law is well-
settled that an order refusing special leave to appeal by a non-speakin
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.