Parity operates at the conviction stage with even greater force than at the bail stage. In Nepal Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal Nos. 2239-2240 of 2026, decided on 17 August 2026 (2026 INSC 869), a Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih quashed a conviction under Sections 302/149 IPC because the trial court had convicted five accused and acquitted five others on the same set of depositions assigning similar roles. The judgment is a reminder that selective conviction from an undifferentiated record is itself a ground of appeal — one that appellate courts in Delhi see argued regularly.
A three-decade-old case, a familiar defect
The prosecution case dated to 1993: an unlawful assembly formed to attack two men, fatal injuries to one of them, and charges under Sections 147, 148 and 149 IPC (rioting and unlawful assembly), Section 307 (attempt to murder) and Section 302 read with 149 (murder with constructive liability). Seventeen witnesses were examined. The trial court's outcome split the accused down the middle — five acquitted, five convicted — although the depositions against both groups were the same and the roles attributed were similar. The High Court affirmed. The Supreme Court did not.
The all-or-none logic of constructive liability
Cases built on Section 149 IPC — now Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — rest on membership of an unlawful assembly sharing a common object. When the evidence establishing that membership and object is a common set of depositions, the court cannot logically hold the same testimony credible against one accused and incredible against another who is similarly placed. As the Bench put it, on the same set of facts either all should have been convicted or all acquitted; convicting some while acquitting others on identical material, without reasoned differentiation, is an approach the law does not permit. The conviction was set aside, the High Court judgment quashed, and the appellant directed to be released with bail bonds cancelled.
Permissible differentiation
Distinct overt acts proved against particular accused; specific weapons or injuries attributed; independent corroboration against some; recoveries or confessions admissible against individuals.
Impermissible differentiation
Identical depositions and similar roles, but conviction of some and acquittal of others with no reasoned basis for the distinction — the defect identified in Nepal Singh.
Why the principle matters beyond riot cases
The all-or-none logic is not confined to unlawful assembly prosecutions. It applies wherever liability is joint and the evidentiary foundation common: conspiracy cases, joint trials under Section 34 IPC (common intention; now Section 3(5) BNS), dowry-death and cruelty prosecutions arraying entire households, and economic-offence cases charging directors collectively. In each, the appellate question is the same — does the record disclose an individualised basis for treating this appellant differently from those the court disbelieved the witnesses against? If not, the benefit of that disbelief travels to all similarly placed.
Working the ground in an appeal
Appeal preparation checklist on parity of evidence:
Chart every witness against every accused: what each deposition says about each person, in the witness's own words. Isolate the findings by which co-accused were acquitted — disbelief of a witness, benefit of doubt, want of identification. Demonstrate that the identical reasoning covers the appellant. Anticipate the answer: identify and neutralise any overt act or corroboration said to distinguish the appellant. Frame the ground as one of law — unexplained selective conviction — not merely as a plea for re-appreciation of evidence.
For appeals before the High Court of Delhi, the decision also underlines the value of pressing such grounds at the earliest stage — including in applications for suspension of sentence under Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, where a facially strong parity argument bears directly on the prospects of the appeal.
The chamber of Advocate Manish Jha conducts criminal trials, appeals and revisions before the District Courts of Delhi, the High Court of Delhi and the Supreme Court of India. This article is for general information; it is not legal advice and does not create an advocate-client relationship.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the case about?
A 1993 incident in Madhya Pradesh in which an unlawful assembly allegedly attacked two men, one of whom died. Eleven accused were tried for offences including Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 307 IPC on the strength of 17 prosecution witnesses. The trial court acquitted five accused, convicted five including the appellant, and one co-accused died during the proceedings.
What principle did the Supreme Court apply?
That where the prosecution evidence — the same depositions — attributes similar roles to several accused, the court must treat them alike: either the evidence is reliable enough to convict all, or its infirmity extends to all. Selective conviction without a reasoned basis for distinguishing one accused from another is legally unsustainable.
Does this mean co-accused acquittal always leads to acquittal?
No. The principle bites only where roles and evidence are genuinely similar. If witnesses attribute a distinct overt act to one accused — the fatal blow, a specific weapon, a distinct recovery — a court can convict that accused while acquitting others. The vice is unexplained differentiation, not differentiation itself.
How is this ground used in appeals in Delhi?
In criminal appeals before the Sessions Courts and the High Court of Delhi, counsel compare the evidence against the appellant with that against acquitted co-accused, witness by witness. If the depositions are common and undifferentiated, the acquittal of co-accused is pressed as a benchmark of the same evidence having been disbelieved — a contradiction the judgment must resolve or the conviction cannot stand.