Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi V. State Of Gujarat, Supreme Court Of India, 2023”

Advertisements

Spread the love

Post Views: 430

CITATION	Criminal Appeal No. 1012 of 2022
DATE OF JUDGMENT	13th September,2023
COURT	Supreme Court of India
APPELLANT	Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi
RESPONDENT	State of Gujarat
BENCH	Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol

Introduction:

“Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi V. State Of Gujarat, Supreme Court Of India, 2023” is a notable legal case that took place in the Indian judicial system. The case involves Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi as the appellant, State Of Gujarat as the respondent. The case is related to legal disputes or matters involving the Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi and State of Gujarat. The year 2023 signifies the year in which the case was heard or decided by the relevant court.

Facts of the Case

1. Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi, the appellant in this criminal case before the Supreme Court of India, was found guilty of his participation in an event which took place in the Shah Alam neighbourhood of Ahmedabad on November 7, 2003. Around 1,000 to 1,500 people came and attacked a number of persons while stopping and burning a two-wheeler and a guy named Mukesh who was riding a bicycle while carrying LPG cylinders. He was beaten and subsequently discovered dead in a nearby lake. The major issue of this case was the theft of a gold necklace from PW-2 Gitaben Bhailal as she was riding in an autorickshaw that the mob had halted. Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi, the appellant, was charged with stealing her jewellery.

2.13 people in all were accused of a variety of crimes under the Indian Penal Code. The trial court found the first six accused guilty, along with the thirteenth accused, while clearing the other accused. The convictions were for offences related to murder under Section 396 read with Section 149, dacoity under Section 395 read with Section 149, attempted murder under Section 307 read with Section 149, arson under Section 435 read with Section 149, and evidence disappearance under Section 201 read with Section 149.1

3. For the offence under Section 396 of the IPC, coupled with Section 149, the maximum penalty was life in prison. However, the High Court lowered the appellant’s sentence to 10 years in its ruling while upholding the convictions. This decision was made by a Division Bench of the High Court on the appeals filed by the convicted defendants.

4. The sixth accuser in this instance, the appellant, appealed his conviction. In the meanwhile, this Court received Criminal Appeal No. 1041 of 2016 from Accused Nos. 1, 5, and 13. This court cleared those three defendants on August 9, 2018. The Special Leave Petition (SLP) submitted by Accused No. 2 with Criminal Case No. 13063 of 2018 was summarily rejected by a decision dated May 11, 2018.

4. However, accused numbers 3 and 4 did not file any appeals to challenge the judgment 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.

Issues Raised

In the case of Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v. State of Gujarat, the following issues are at stake:

1. Identification Reliability: The witness’s identification of the appellant was not supported by a test identification parade, included errors, and took place two years after the occurrence, raising questions about its accuracy.

2. Testimony of Important Witnesses: The validity of the testimony of important witnesses, particularly PW-2 Gitaben, and whether it was sufficient for the appellant to be found guilty.

3. Application of the concept of parity and consistency, given that three co-accused were previously exonerated based on comparable evidence.

4. Common purpose or aim: Sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code demand clear and convincing evidence to prove a common purpose or aim.

Appellant Contention

1. The PW-2’s identification of the appellant in court was not supported by the test identification parade, the appellant claimed, as she did not recognize and pick him out from the parade and she did not mention the appellant’s name or any pertinent description in her initial complaint.

2. The appellant also claimed that his conviction was based on insufficient and uncorroborated evidence.

3. The appellant further emphasized that PW-2’s testimony had inconsistencies and contradictions with regard to the number of individuals in the crowd, the occasion and location of the occurrence, and the description of the necklace.

4. He additionally asserted that neither he nor any other accused person had the necklace, despite what the inquiry had claimed, and that there was no independent evidence to support such claims.

Respondent Contention

1. The respondent, State of Gujarat, defended the appellant’s conviction and argued that PW-2’s identification was reliable and trustworthy since she could clearly and closely see his face when he took the woman’s necklace.

2. Gitaben fraudulently accused the appellant on the grounds of community, according to the state, even though they both belonged to the same community.

3. This was emphasized in order to imply that there was no bias on her part or other reason why she chose to identify the appellant.

4. The state said that there was enough proof to establish the appellant’s shared goal and involvement in the incident.

5. They cited a number of pieces of proof, including the appellant and other accused persons’ detention at the scene.

Judgment

1. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant stands allowed, and his conviction and sentence are set aside.

2. The appellant is acquitted of all the charges. Accused nos.3 and 4, having similar circumstances, are also acquitted. The appeals are allowed accordingly.

3. The appellant, if not required in any other case, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case.

4. Fine, if paid, be refunded to the appellant.

5. The State is to take necessary steps to set accused nos.3 and 4 at liberty if they are not required in any other case.

6. The bail bonds of the appellant, accused nos.3 and 4, shall stand discharged.

7. A copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned trial court for information and necessary action.

Conclusion

In this case, the Supreme Court exonerated the appellant based on several key factors. The Court found weak and suspect evidence, particularly in the testimony of the sole eyewitness, PW-2 Gitaben, who couldn’t positively identify the appellant until two years after the incident. Her initial statement under Section 161 CrPC didn’t implicate the appellant, and she admitted to being unable to recognize the attackers due to fear and the crowd’s size. The Court also identified discrepancies in her evidence.

Furthermore, there was no proof of collaboration between the appellant and other suspects in planning the crimes. The Court cited a similar case and stressed the importance of legal consistency and justice. Consequently, the appellant was released due to insufficient evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, aligning with their prior decisions.

In the Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v. State of Gujarat case, legal errors were evident, including delays in identification parades and failure to record testimony of other eyewitnesses as per Section 161 CrPC. Inconsistent rulings from lower to higher courts raised concerns about Article 14 violations.

This case highlights challenges and complexities within India’s criminal justice system, affecting the rights of the accused, victims, and society. It underscores issues surrounding evidence validity, eyewitness testimony, identification parades, and judicial discretion. It calls for greater precision and consistency in legal procedures and heightened responsibility within the justice system. The case exemplifies the judiciary’s commitment to protecting accused rights and ensuring convictions rest on solid, credible evidence, particularly in complex cases, emphasizing the importance of justice being both done and seen to be done and the perils of delayed justice.

References