LexYOGARANI versus STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 625 : 2024 INSC 721 Yogarani v. State by The Inspector of Police (Criminal Appeal No. 477 of 2017) 23 September 2024 [Sanjay Kumar and Aravind Kumar,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose, if the court can convict one accused and acquit the other when there is similar or identical evidence pitted against two accused persons. Headnotes† Passports Act, 1967 – ss.12(1)(b) and 12(2) – Offences and penalties – Prosecution case that appellant illegally facilitated the issuance of second passport in favour of accused no.1 – Other accused persons connived with the appellant in procuring second passport to accused no.1 – Appellant and accused no.1 convicted for offences punishable u/s.420 IPC and s.12(1)(b) and s.12(2) of the 1967 Act, accused no.5 convicted u/s.12(2) of the 1967 Act and the Prevention of Corruption Act, however, acquitted accused no.3 and 4 of all the charges – In appeal, the High Court acquitted accused nos.1 and 5, however, the order of conviction and sentence of the appellant upheld – Sustainability: Held: Court cannot convict one accused and acquit the other when there is similar or identical evidence pitted against two accused persons – Allegations against the appellant being the same as made against accused No.3 and 4, the courts below could not have convicted the appellant while acquitting the other two – Burden is cast on the prosecution to prove that the appellant had knowingly furnished false information or suppressing known material information with the intent of securing a passport or travel document to a person and thereby had abetted in the commission of offence punishable u/s.12(1) and thereby punishable u/s.12(2) – Prosecution failed to place any evidence to prove that the appellant had prior information of accused no.1 was already possessing a passport or knowingly had furnished false information to the passport authorities namely after knowing that * Author 626 [2024] 9 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports accused no.1 had possessed or holding a passport was applying for second passport or having known the fact of accused no.1 possessing the passport was applying for the second passport and thereby there has been suppression of material information – Prosecution 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 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 – Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt – Appellant acquitted of the offences alleged against her – Judgment of the trial court as affirmed by the High Court set aside – Penal Code, 1860. [Paras 10, 14-16] Case Law Cited Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v State of Gujarat [2023] 12 SCR 220 : (2023) INSC 829; Padum Kumar v State of Uttar Pradesh [2020] 1 SCR 57 : (2020) 3 SCC 35 – referred to. List of Acts Penal Code, 1860; Passports Act, 1967; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. List of Keywords Issuance of second passport; Conviction of one accused and acquittal of the other when similar or identical evidence pitted against the two; Burden to prove; False information or suppressing known material information. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 477 of 2017 From the Judgment and Order dated 18.08.2011 of the High Court of Madras at Madurai in CA No. 203 of 2008 Appearances for Parties M. Yogesh Kanna, S. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Raghunatha Sethupathy B, Manoj Kumar A, Vasu Kalra, Ms. Monica Saini, Advs. for the Appellant. [2024] 9 S.C.R. 627 Yogarani v. State by The Inspector of Police Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G., Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Ms. Shraddha Deshmukh, Rajnish Prasad, Udai Khanna, Nithin Choudhary Pavuluri, Advs. for the Respondent. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Aravind Kumar, J. 1. The appellant who has been arraigned as accused No.2 has challenged the concurrent conviction and sentence ordered under Section 420 Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) read with Section 12(2) of the Passports Act, 1967 (herein after referred as ‘Passports Act’) and sentenced to one-year rigorous imprisonment for each of the offences which are to run concurrently. 2. The short and long of prosecution story is that appellant had wrongful
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.