When There's Similar Evidence Of Eyewitnesses Against Two Accused Ascribing Them Same Role, Court Can’t Convict One...
Principle: Similar Evidence Against Two Accused Ascribing Same Role
In criminal trials, eyewitness testimony plays a crucial role in identifying the accused and their involvement. However, the courts have laid down clear principles regarding how such evidence must be treated, especially when:
Two or more accused are alleged to have played distinct roles, but eyewitness evidence does not differentiate between them, attributing the same role or involvement to both.
Why the Court Cannot Convict One Accused on Such Evidence
Presumption of Innocence and Fair Trial
Every accused is entitled to be judged on the basis of clear and distinct evidence establishing their individual role in the crime.
If evidence does not distinguish who did what, convicting one while acquitting or ignoring the other would be arbitrary.
Avoiding Miscarriage of Justice
Eyewitness evidence that is vague or confused about individual roles can lead to wrongful conviction.
Courts must ensure that identification evidence is reliable and specific.
Requirement of Specific Role Attribution
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt each accused's distinct role.
If the witnesses say both committed the same act, courts cannot single out one accused without reason.
Doubt Must Benefit the Accused
In case of ambiguity regarding the role or identification, the benefit of doubt goes to the accused.
Supreme Court's Guidance and Case Laws
1. State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram, AIR 2006 SC 1446
The Supreme Court held that when witnesses give the same version about both accused playing the same role, but the prosecution fails to show who actually did what, conviction cannot be sustained against one without clear proof.
2. Dinesh v. State of Haryana, (2010) 1 SCC 295
The Court emphasized that mere common implication is not enough.
If evidence points equally to both accused, and roles are not separately established, the court cannot single out and convict one accused.
3. Surinder Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 2007 SC 1446
The Court stated that if two accused are said to have committed the crime jointly, and the evidence fails to distinguish their individual roles, the court should not convict one based on ambiguous evidence.
4. Ramachandra Reddy v. Public Prosecutor, AIR 1953 SC 137
The Court observed that conviction cannot rest on uncertain or confused eyewitness accounts, especially when the roles of multiple accused are not clearly delineated.
Application
When eyewitnesses say both accused committed the same act, or assign the same role, but evidence does not clarify who actually did the physical act or had the dominant role, courts should:
Re-examine the credibility and reliability of the eyewitness testimony.
Look for corroborative evidence to distinguish roles.
Avoid convicting one accused based on ambiguous testimony against both.
If the prosecution cannot prove individual involvement beyond reasonable doubt, the accused should be acquitted.
Summary
Courts require clear, distinct evidence of each accused’s role in the crime.
Similar eyewitness evidence attributing the same role to two accused cannot be the sole basis to convict one without proper distinction.
Ambiguity or confusion in eyewitness testimony benefits the accused.
Supreme Court rulings consistently uphold the principle to prevent miscarriage of justice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments