The jurisdiction mentioned under Article 136 of the constitution of India can be invoked in some compelling cases observed by the Supreme Court. The conviction of the accused, even though they do not file any appeal while considering the appeal filed by another person charged by the Court.
The Criminal Court should make similar decisions in similar cases, and in such cases, the Court will not make a distinction between the two accused, which shall lead to discrimination.
Supreme Court in an appeal by a convict against one of the judgments passed by the Gujarat High Court wherein the Court convicted the accused while acquitting others in the case the division bench has accused the convict by setting aside one line of judgment of the trial court and the impact judgment of the respective High Court. Furthermore, it also acquitted three other convicts by exercising their powers under Article 136. It extended the benefit of parity to some convicts who did not challenge the judgment of the High Court.
A total of 13 accused were prosecuted, out of which only seven were convicted, including the present convict for the offenses punishable under Section 307, section 395, section 396, and Section 435. The maximum sentence imposed was a life sentence for the crime punishable under section 396.
What does parity mean in terms of criminology?
The Court noted no prosecution witnesses other than the two identified witnesses. The Court also mentioned that the testimony of only one witness could be done, but since the witness’s testimony was not wholly reliable, it became doubtful.
Hence, the Court mentioned that it is unsafe for them to record a conclusion based on the testimony of a sole witness. A corporation was utterly absent in the case; therefore, the Court held the conviction of convicts could not be sustained.
The Court viewed the evidence the witnesses gave does not inspire any confidence, and thus they rejected the testimony entirely. Furthermore, it also said the benefit of finding must be extended to other convicts.
Thus, the Court said there is identical or similar evidence of eyewitnesses against two accused by ascribing them a similar assumption: the Court cannot convict one charged, and then they cannot acquit the other. In such a scenario, the cases of both the accused were governed by the principle of parity, which means that the criminal Court will decide the case is alike. In such specific cases, the Court will not distinguish between the two accused as it will lead to discrimination.
Is the law of parity a desirable rule?
The Court also noted that a particular petition filed by the convict would be summarily dismissed without giving any further reasons; it retaliated that the order refusing specific lead to the appeal would not attract the doctrine of merger. However, they also mentioned that as a constitutional court, it is entrusted with the primary duty of upholding the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian constitution. Thus, the Court extended and gave the benefit of parity to convict two and recalled the order passed by a special leave petition filed by the convict.
My opinion
The principle of parity refers to equal treatment and equal opportunities for all individuals regardless of their social status, gender, religion, or race. The benefits of equality in India are extensive, including promoting social justice, reducing inequalities, and creating a more inclusive society. It helps uplift marginalized communities and provides them equal access to education, employment, and healthcare. Parity also plays a crucial role in promoting gender equality and reducing discrimination against women and girls. Overall, the principle of parity is a cornerstone of a democratic and equitable society, and its implementation is essential for the progress and development of India.
#ParityPrincipleIndia #GenderEquality #EqualRepresentation #EqualOpportunity #SocialJustice #NonDiscrimination #EqualRights #EqualPay #InclusiveSociety #GenderSensitivity
