Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v. State of Gujarat, Supreme Court of India, 2023.

Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 723 SC

Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol

Criminal Appeal No: 1012 of 2022

Date of Judgment: September 13, 2023

Legal Provisions /Acts: Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 436, 452 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984; Sections 25(1)(a) and (b) and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

FACTS.

1. In this criminal case in the Supreme Court of India, the appellant, Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi, was convicted for his involvement in an incident that occurred on November 7, 2003, in the Shah Alam area of Ahmedabad. Around 1,000 to 1,500 people had gathered, and they stopped and assaulted several individuals, including burning a two-wheeler and assaulting a person carrying LPG cylinders on a bicycle. One person named Mukesh was assaulted and later found dead in a nearby lake. This case was mainly concerned with the snatching of a gold necklace from PW-2 Gitaben Bhailal as she was travelling in the autorickshaw, which got stopped by the mob. The appellant, Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi, was accused of being the one who stole her necklace.

2. A total of 13 individuals were charged with various offences under the Indian Penal Code. Accused numbers 1 to 6 and accused number 13 were convicted by the trial court, while the rest of the accused were acquitted. The convictions were for offences including Section 396 read with Section 149 (related to murder), Section 395 read with Section 149 (related to dacoity), Section 307 read with Section 149 (related to attempted murder), Section 435 read with Section 149 (related to mischief by fire), and Section 201 read with Section 149 (related to causing the disappearance of evidence).^[1]

3. The maximum punishment imposed was life imprisonment for the offence under Section 396, read with Section 149 of the IPC. However, the High Court, in its judgement, upheld the convictions but reduced the appellant’s sentence to 10 years. The appeals filed by the convicted accused were decided by a Division Bench of the High Court through this judgement.

4. In this case, the appellant, who is accused number 6, appealed against his conviction. Meanwhile, accused numbers 1, 5, and 13 filed Criminal Appeal No. 1041 of 2016 with this Court. On August 9, 2018, this court acquitted those three accused individuals. Accused number 2 filed an SLP (Special Leave Petition) with Criminal Dy. No. 13063 of 2018, but it was summarily dismissed by order dated May 11, 2018.

5. However, accused numbers 3 and 4 did not file any appeals to challenge the judgement of the High Court. So, in summary, some of the accused individuals appealed their convictions, and some did not, resulting in different outcomes for each.^[2][3]

 ISSUES RAISED.

 The issues raised in the case of Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v. State of Gujarat are:-

1. Identification Reliability: Doubts about the reliability of the witness’s identification of the appellant, as it lacked support from a test identification parade, had discrepancies, and occurred two years after the incident.
2. Testimony of Key Witnesses: The reliability of testimonies from key witnesses, especially PW-2 Gitaben, and whether they were credible enough to convict the appellant.
3.  Principle of Parity and Consistency: The application of the principle of parity and consistency, given that three co-accused were acquitted earlier based on similar evidence.
4.  Common Intention or Object: The requirement of clear and cogent evidence to establish a common intention or object under Sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

CONTENTION

1. The appellant argued that his conviction was based on insufficient and uncorroborated evidence, as the PW-2’s identification of him in court was not supported by the test identification parade, as she did not identify and pick him out from the parade and she also did not mention the appellant’s name or relevant description in her initial complaint. The appellant also pointed out that there were discrepancies and contradictions in PW-2’s testimony regarding the number of persons in the mob, the time and place of the incident, and the description of the necklace. He further submitted that there was no recovery of the necklace from him or any other accused as it was alleged by the investigation, and also that no independent evidence was there to corroborate PW-2 Gitaben’s version of the case. He claimed that he was falsely implicated due to communal bias and prejudice and that the PW-2’s conviction was influenced by extraneous factors such as media reports and police pressure.

2.  The respondent, State of Gujarat, supported the conviction of the appellant and contended that PW-2’s identification was credible and trustworthy, as she had a clear and close view of the appellant’s face when he snatched her necklace. The state also argued that there was no apparent reason for Gitaben to falsely accuse the appellant on the basis of community, as they belonged to the same community. This point was stressed to suggest that there was no personal bias or ulterior motive in her identification of the appellant. The state further argued that there was sufficient evidence to prove the appellant’s common object and participation in the riot. They pointed out several pieces of evidence, including the appellant’s arrest from the spot along with other accused individuals, the recovery of the necklace from the appellant’s possession, his confession to his involvement before a magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), and his identification that was made by other witnesses such as PW-1 Baldev and PW-13 Ajay.

RATIONALE

The Supreme Court decided to acquit the appellant in this case based on several key reasons. The appellant was acquitted by the Supreme Court on the grounds of insufficient and unreliable evidence. The Court critically examined the testimony of PW-2 Gitaben, the sole eyewitness, who identified the appellant in the court after two years of the incident. The Court noted that she had failed to identify him in the identification parade or implicate him in her statement under Section 161 CrPC. The Court also observed that she had conceded that there were 50 to 100 people in the mob that attacked her autorickshaw and that she could not discern their faces due to fear and panic. Furthermore, they found inconsistencies and contradictions in her evidence regarding her presence at the scene of the offence, her necklace being snatched, and her injuries being inflicted. Additionally, they disregarded the recovery of a necklace from the appellant because the evidence did not conclusively establish that it was in his possession. The Court concluded that PW-2 Gitaben’s evidence was inadequate to prove the identity and participation of the appellant in the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The court also found that there was no other evidence to corroborate or substantiate her evidence and held that there was a grave doubt about the culpability of the appellant, and he deserved the benefit of doubt.

Moreover, they did not find any evidence that showed that the appellant and the other suspects acted together with a common intention when committing the crimes. In other words, there was no proof they conspired in the criminal activity. The Court also referred to a previous case (Criminal Appeal No. 1041 of 2016) where they had freed three co-suspects who were recognised by witnesses in court without a proper identification parade or supporting evidence. They stressed that fairness and consistency are vital in applying the law. Therefore, they freed the appellant because the evidence against him was not strong enough to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This decision is consistent with their earlier ruling in a similar case, where they emphasised the importance of treating all suspects equally when the evidence against them is almost the same.^[4]

DEFECTS OF LAW.

Some of the defects of law in the case of Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v. State of Gujarat are:-

1. The delay in conducting the identification parade and test identification parade may have affected the memory and accuracy of the eyewitness, PW-2 Gitaben.
2. The failure to record the statements of the other eyewitnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, may have provided corroborative evidence against the appellant.
3. The inconsistency in the judgements of the trial court and the High Court, which convicted the appellant, and the Supreme Court, which acquitted him, which may have reflected a lack of uniformity and coherence in the interpretation and application of law.
4. The violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before law and equal protection of law, by discriminating between the appellant and his co-accused persons, who were acquitted by the Supreme Court on similar grounds

INFERENCE.

The case of Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v. State of Gujarat highlights the challenges and complexities involved in the administration and the functioning of criminal justice in India. It exposes the defects and inconsistencies in the process of investigation, prosecution, and adjudication of criminal cases, which may adversely affect the rights and interests of the accused, the victim, and society at large. This case  also raises some important questions about the role and reliability of evidences such as eyewitness testimony, identification parades, circumstantial evidence, and judicial discretion in criminal cases. The case demonstrates the need for more clarity and consistency in the legal principles and standards governing such cases, as well as the need for more vigilance and accountability in the conduct and performance of the police, the prosecution, and the judiciary. This case illustrates the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the rights of the accused and ensuring that convictions are based on strong and reliable evidence, even when dealing with complex and challenging circumstances. The case serves as a reminder that justice delayed is justice denied and that justice must not only be done but also be seen to be done.

S. Chetan Siri Sai,

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Law College, Osmania University, Hyderabad, Telangana.

---

^[1] Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v. State of Gujarat – Supreme Court Cases. https://www.supremecourtcases.com/javed-shaukat-ali-qureshi-v-state-of-gujarat/.

^[2] Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi Vs. State of Gujarat [13/09/2023] – SC and HC …. https://mynation.net/judgments/javed-shaukat-ali-qureshi-vs-state-of-gujarat-13-09-2023/.

^[3] Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi Vs. State of Gujarat – Latest Laws. https://latestlaws.com/latest-caselaw/2023/september/2023-latest-caselaw-723-sc/.

^[4] Courts cannot convict one accused and acquit the other when evidence …. https://www.barandbench.com/news/courts-cannot-convict-one-accused-acquit-other-evidence-same-supreme-court.