Introduction

The case of Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v. The State of Gujarat (2023 INSC 829) represents a significant judicial scrutiny of the reliance on single eyewitness testimony in cases involving large mobs and subsequent criminal activities. Decided by the Supreme Court of India on September 13, 2023, this judgment delves deep into the evidentiary standards required to uphold convictions in scenarios characterized by large-scale public disturbances.

Background: On November 7, 2003, a violent mob comprising approximately 1,000 to 1,500 individuals congregated in Shah Alam, Ahmedabad. The mob engaged in assaulting passersby, including forcing individuals to disclose their identities, snatching possessions, and ultimately leading to the death of Mukesh, a pillion rider, who was found dead in a nearby lake. Thirteen individuals were prosecuted, with seven convicted under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Section 396 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means) read with Section 149 (unlawful assembly).

Key Issues: The central issue revolved around the reliability of eyewitness testimony in identifying and attributing criminal conduct within a large and aggressive mob. Specifically, whether the conviction of the appellant, Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi (accused no.6), based solely on the testimony of a single witness, PW-2 Gitaben, was justifiable.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court, presided over by Justice Abhay S. Oka, meticulously examined the evidentiary basis of the convictions. The High Court had upheld the convictions of several accused but reduced the sentences. The appellant, Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi, challenged his conviction, asserting that the sole eyewitness identification was unreliable.

The Supreme Court concurred with the appellant's arguments, emphasizing the unreliability of the solitary eyewitness testimony in the context of a large mob and the significant time lapse between the incident and the identification. Referencing established legal principles, the Court underscored the necessity for corroborative evidence to sustain convictions, especially when relying on single witness accounts.

Consequently, the Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi, along with accused nos.2, 3, and 4, citing the insufficiency of evidence to uphold their convictions. The Court also extended similar considerations to other convicted individuals, reinforcing the standards for credible evidence in such cases.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references the landmark case of Vadivelu Thevar v. THE STATE OF MADRAS (AIR 1957 SC 614), which elucidated the court's stance on single witness testimonies. In paragraphs 10 to 12 of Vadivelu Thevar, the Supreme Court articulated that while a single credible witness can suffice for conviction, the quality and reliability of the testimony are paramount. The Court in Qureshi's case leverages this precedent to assess the credibility of PW-2's identification, ultimately finding it lacking due to various factors such as the absence of a prior acquaintance between the witness and the accused, the large size of the mob, and the significant delay in witness identification.

Additionally, the Court refers to Musa Khan & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1976 SC 2566) to highlight the necessity of proving individual participation within a mob. The Supreme Court emphasized that mere presence within an unlawful assembly does not inherently imply participation in specific criminal acts unless direct or circumstantial evidence substantiates such involvement.

The judgment also cites Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, reinforcing the principle of parity in convictions where similar evidence is presented against multiple accused individuals. This ensures consistency and fairness in judicial proceedings, preventing arbitrary distinctions between co-accused based on identical or analogous evidence.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's legal reasoning in this case is anchored in the principles of evidentiary reliability and judicial prudence. It meticulously analyzes the factors undermining the credibility of the sole eyewitness, PW-2, including:

• Lack of Prior Acquaintance: The witness did not know the appellant beforehand, casting doubt on her ability to accurately identify him without prior familiarity.
• Size of the Mob: Identifying a single individual within a mob of 50-100 people is inherently challenging, especially post-event.
• Time Lapse: The identification occurred approximately two years after the incident, which can significantly impair memory recall.
• Absence of Test Identification Parade: No formal procedure was conducted to substantiate the witness's identification, further questioning its validity.

The Court emphasizes that in scenarios where the testimony is categorized as "neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable," corroborative evidence becomes essential. In the absence of such corroboration, the Court errs on the side of caution to prevent miscarriages of justice.

Impact

This judgment establishes a crucial precedent regarding the standards for eyewitness testimony in cases involving large assemblies or mobs. It underscores the necessity for corroborative evidence when relying on single witness accounts, especially in environments where individual identification is fraught with challenges.

Future cases will likely reference this judgment to assess the reliability of eyewitness testimonies, particularly under similar circumstances involving large crowds and post-event delays. Additionally, it may influence law enforcement practices, advocating for more stringent procedures in witness identification, such as conducting formal identification parades and reducing time lapses between incidents and identifications.

Moreover, the extension of parity in convictions ensures fairness in judicial outcomes, preventing unequal treatment of accused individuals who are subjected to identical or similar evidence. This reinforces the integrity of the judicial process, ensuring that convictions are grounded in robust and reliable evidence.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 396 Read with Section 149 IPC

Section 396: This section pertains to voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means. It implies that the accused has caused severe bodily injury to another person using any dangerous instrumentality or means.

Section 149: This section deals with unlawful assemblies. An unlawful assembly is defined as a group of five or more persons with a common object to commit an offense or offenses, where these offenses relate to causing disturbance of the public peace.

When Section 396 is read with Section 149, it implies that the grievous hurt caused was executed within the context of an unlawful assembly, thereby attributing collective criminal responsibility to members of the mob.

Criterions for Corroboration

Corroboration refers to additional evidence that supports the testimony of a witness. In legal terms, it serves to strengthen the reliability of a witness's account. The Supreme Court delineates three categories for oral testimony:

• Wholly Reliable: Testimony that is free from any suspicion or bias, making it fully trustworthy.
• Wholly Unreliable: Testimony that is entirely suspect, perhaps due to bias, inability to observe clearly, or other factors undermining its credibility.
• Neither Wholly Reliable nor Wholly Unreliable: Testimony that falls in between, requiring careful examination and additional corroborative evidence to determine its reliability.

In the Qureshi case, the testimony of PW-2 was deemed to fall into the third category, necessitating corroborative evidence, which was found lacking.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's judgment in Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v. The State of Gujarat serves as a pivotal reference point for evaluating the credibility of eyewitness testimonies, especially in the milieu of large-scale public disturbances. By emphasizing the quality over quantity of evidence, the Court reinforces the foundational legal principle that justice must be predicated on reliable and corroborated evidence rather than mere assertions, regardless of the number of witnesses.

This decision not only safeguards the rights of the accused, ensuring that convictions are not procured through dubious or insufficient evidence, but also sets a higher standard for future prosecutions. It underscores the judiciary's role in meticulously scrutinizing evidence to uphold the integrity of the legal system, thereby fostering trust and fairness in judicial proceedings.

In the broader legal context, this judgment advocates for enhanced procedural safeguards in witness identification processes, promoting practices that mitigate the risks of erroneous convictions. It ultimately contributes to the evolution of a more robust and equitable judicial framework in India.