Court Can't Convict One, Acquit Another On Similar, Identical Evidence: SC
📖 Court Can’t Convict One, Acquit Another on Similar Evidence: Supreme Court
🔹 Principle
The Supreme Court of India has clarified that where co-accused face trial on identical or substantially similar evidence, the court cannot convict one and acquit the other arbitrarily.
Conviction must be based on credible and consistent evidence.
If the evidence against co-accused is identical in nature and quality, differential treatment must be reasoned and justifiable.
Mere suspicion or minor differences in conduct are insufficient to acquit one while convicting another.
This principle ensures fairness, equality before law (Article 14), and consistency in criminal justice.
🔹 Supreme Court Observations
Uniform Treatment of Co-Accused
Evidence against co-accused must be carefully examined.
Conviction of one and acquittal of another on identical evidence without explanation violates principles of justice.
Burden on Court
Court must explicitly state reasons for differential treatment.
Mere assertion that one accused is “less culpable” is not enough; reasoning must be grounded in evidence.
Corroboration and Individual Culpability
While evidence may be identical, differences in participation, intent, or role can justify differential outcomes.
Courts must examine circumstances meticulously before differing verdicts.
🔹 Important Case Laws
State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006) 12 SCC 254
SC held that convicting one co-accused and acquitting another on same evidence requires careful scrutiny.
Courts must provide clear reasoning if such differential outcomes occur.
Ram Swaroop v. State of U.P. (2006) 3 SCC 191
Acquittal of one co-accused when evidence is identical must be justified by specific role, participation, or mitigating circumstances.
Rameshwar v. State of M.P. (1979) 3 SCC 255
Conviction of one and acquittal of another on same set of facts without explanation is arbitrary and unsustainable.
Manish Kumar v. State of Jharkhand (2019) 2 SCC 1
SC emphasized that trial courts must avoid mechanical judgments when dealing with co-accused.
Fair trial requires individualized assessment with reference to evidence.
🔹 Key Takeaways
Identity of Evidence Principle: Co-accused facing identical evidence should generally receive similar treatment unless a clear, justified difference exists.
Courts must explicitly record reasons if differential verdicts are passed.
Ensures equality before law, fairness, and protection from arbitrary convictions.
✅ Thus, the Supreme Court reiterated that a court cannot mechanically convict one accused and acquit another on the same evidence; any differential judgment must be fully justified and reasoned.
RELATED Blog
0 comments