Summary
The Supreme Court acquitted a riot-case appellant because a solitary witness’s first identification in court was unsafe in the circumstances and lacked corroboration. It also acquitted three similarly placed co-accused: two had not appealed, and the third’s special leave petition had been summarily dismissed. Identical incriminating testimony had already been wholly rejected in other co-accused’s appeals. Exceptional intervention protected liberty and avoided inconsistent results on the same evidence.
Issues
- Whether the solitary identification proved the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether parity relief could extend to non-appealing co-accused and one whose special leave petition had been dismissed without reasons.
Provisions considered
- Section 134, Indian Evidence Act, 1872No particular number of witnesses is necessary. A wholly reliable solitary witness may sustain conviction, but this identification required corroboration because of the circumstances impairing its reliability. (¶¶ 7, 8)
- Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860Mere innocent presence near a mob does not establish membership with the requisite common object. The Court applied the earlier rejection of the same witnesses on whom the similarly placed co-accused’s convictions rested. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)
- Articles 21 and 136, Constitution of IndiaExceptional suo motu intervention was warranted for identically situated non-appellants to protect liberty. A non-speaking refusal of special leave created no merger; that refusal was recalled to extend the same relief to another co-accused. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21)
Held
- The solitary witness did not previously know the appellant, saw a fleeting incident amid a large aggressive mob, had no meaningful opportunity to note distinguishing features and identified him about two years later without an identification parade. Her evidence was not wholly reliable and the necessary corroboration was absent. No universal rule against conviction on one witness was imposed. (¶¶ 3, 6, 7, 8)
- The same two police witnesses supplied the only incriminating evidence against three other accused. A coordinate Bench had rejected their testimony entirely when acquitting identically placed co-accused. Parity required the same result where the evidence and attributed roles were alike. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
- Article 136 may exceptionally be exercised suo motu, with caution and sparingly, for non-appealing accused where compelling grounds exist. Denying these two accused the benefit of the same evidentiary finding would violate their liberty under Article 21. (¶¶ 16, 17)
- A summary, non-speaking dismissal of special leave does not attract merger. The Court recalled that dismissal, granted leave and acquitted the remaining similarly placed accused to prevent manifest injustice and protect Article 21 rights. (¶¶ 18, 19, 21(c))
Result
Appeal allowed. Appellant and accused 2, 3 and 4 acquitted. Appellant’s bail bonds cancelled; others directed to be released unless required in another case. Earlier summary SLP dismissal concerning accused 2 recalled and leave granted.