Where the prosecution relies on the same set of facts and witness depositions against multiple accused, can some be convicted while similarly situated co-accused are acquitted, without any distinguishing reason?

No. On the very same set of depositions assigning similar roles to all the accused, either all should have been convicted or acquitted; there was no discussion by the High Court as to why the reasoning for acquitting the co-accused could not equally apply to the convicts.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — co-accused — cross-examination — eyewitness testimony — acquittal — co-accused — same set of facts — no distinguishing reason — Held: Where conviction and acquittal of different accused rested on the very same set of depositions and facts, the remaining convicts could not be treated differently from the acquitted co-accused absent any reasoned basis for the distinction. (¶10) cross-examination — contradicted testimony — not worthy of credence — Held further: The eyewitness testimonies, though consistent in examination-in-chief, stood mutually contradicted and were full of embellishments on cross-examination, rendering them not worthy of credence. (¶6, ¶9) appeal allowed — conviction set aside — Held further: The appellant's conviction was accordingly set aside, the impugned judgment quashed, and the appeals disposed of. (¶11)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of NEPAL SINGH v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India