Lethargy Is Not an Exceptional Circumstance: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Striking Off of Defence for Delay in Filing Written Statement Vague Decree of Injunction Can’t Be Executed by Attaching Machines: Rajasthan High Court Strikes Down Execution Order Mere permission to join proceedings without allowing filing of written statement is illusory: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Proceedings Unregistered Power of Attorney Can’t Transfer Property: MP High Court Denies Title, Dismisses Ejectment Suit Mere Non-Recovery of Weapon Is Not Fatal When Circumstantial and Medical Evidence Prove Guilt Beyond Doubt: Allahabad High Court Failure to Examine Gazetted Officer and Magistrate Who Certified Seizure Goes to Root of Fair Trial Under NDPS Act : Calcutta High Court Tender Years Doctrine Is No Longer Good Law: Delhi High Court Slams Mother’s Custody Claim Built on Parental Alienation Negation of Bail is the Rule in NDPS Cases Involving Commercial Quantity: Himachal Pradesh High Court Denies Bail Single Stab Injury in Heat of Passion During Sudden Quarrel Is Not Murder: Kerala High Court Section 10 CPC Inapplicable To Labour Court Proceedings; Stay Of Individual Disputes Denied: Karnataka High Court 138 NI Act | Once Issuance and Signature on Cheque Are Admitted, Burden Shifts on Accused to Dislodge Statutory Presumption: Madras High Court Confession Cannot Substitute Proof: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Convicted of Wife’s Murder "Sole Eyewitness Testimony, Corroborated by Medical and Recovery Evidence, Is Enough to Sustain Conviction Under Section 302 IPC: Allahabad High Court Partition Once Effected Cannot Be Reopened on Vague Allegations of Fraud: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Registered Family Partition Deed Cancellation of Land Acquisition Compensation Without Allegation or Hearing Is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Restores Compensation to Innocent Land Owner Whether Act Was in Discharge of Official Duty Is a Question of Fact — Magistrate, Not High Court, Must Decide: Supreme Court Restricts Writ Interference in BNSS Cases Section 175(4) BNSS | Affidavit Is Not Optional — Even Complaints Against Public Servants Must Follow Procedural Rigour: Supreme Court Magistrate Cannot Be Directed to Recall His Judicial Order by a Writ Court: Supreme Court Warns Against Article 226 Interference in Pending Criminal Proceedings Even In Absence of Written Demand, If Substantial Dispute Exists or Is Apprehended, Reference Under Section 10 ID Act Is Valid: Supreme Court Absence of Classical Signs of Strangulation and Possibility of Hanging Nullifies Homicidal Theory: Supreme Court Holds Medical Evidence Alone Cannot Prove Guilt Confession Must Be Direct Acknowledgment of Guilt, Not Mere Presence at Scene: Supreme Court Slams Misuse of Section 164 CrPC Reversal of Acquittal Without Dislodging Trial Court’s Reasoning Is Impermissible: Supreme Court Restores Acquittal

"A Question of Liberty": Supreme Court Acquits Multiple Accused in High-Profile Case, Citing Violation of Article 21

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a groundbreaking decision, the Supreme Court of India overturned several convictions in a high-profile criminal case, stating that failure to grant relief to certain accused would "amount to violation of fundamental rights guaranteed to them by Article 21 of the Constitution of India." The order has been hailed as a reaffirmation of the principles of personal liberty and justice.

The Court acquitted the appellant, Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi, along with other accused, by relying on several grounds. It was primarily observed that the testimonies of PW-25 and PW-26 did not "inspire confidence." Therefore, the Court rejected their testimony in its entirety. "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," the judgment reads.

The Court went on to state that the principle of 'parity' would need to be applied in the cases of the various accused persons. This implies that the Court should decide like cases alike, not making a distinction between two similarly situated accused, which would otherwise "amount to discrimination."

The judgment also touched upon the Court's suo moto powers under Article 136 of the Constitution, stating that they should be "used very sparingly with caution and circumspection." It also invoked the doctrine of parity, emphasizing the importance of Article 21, which guarantees personal liberty, in the decision-making process.

Supreme Court concluded by setting aside the earlier convictions of the accused and acquitting them of the offences alleged against them. The Court also cancelled the bail bonds for those who were out on bail.

"This judgment upholds the sanctity of Article 21 and reaffirms that the principles of justice and personal liberty are paramount," said legal experts in the wake of the ruling.

Date of Decision: September 13, 2023 

Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi  VS State of Gujarat      

Latest Legal News