Based on the principle of parity, the Supreme Court acquitted the appellant. The Court held that when a co-accused, prosecuted on identical evidence in a joint trial, is acquitted and the State does not challenge it, sustaining the conviction of the remaining accused would be unjust and inequitable.
Facts Of The Case:
On January 1, 2002, the State Task Force officials near Dayamani Restaurant, Kathipudi, noticed two women, the appellant Vaddi Ratnam (Accused No.2) and Nerella Vijaya Lakshmi (Accused No.1). Upon seeing the officials, the co-accused handed a yellow handbag to the appellant, after which both attempted to flee but were apprehended. A search of the bag revealed six packets containing a total of 5.5 kilograms of opium. The accused confessed to being involved in the opium trade and stated the contraband was sourced from Anaparthi for resale. A case was registered under the NDPS Act. The Trial Court convicted both accused, sentencing them to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The High Court later upheld the appellant’s conviction. However, in a separate appeal, the High Court acquitted the co-accused (Accused No.1), noting the prosecution failed to prove her “conscious possession” of the contraband, as key witnesses were hostile and evidence was unclear. The State did not challenge this acquittal. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued for acquittal based on the principle of parity, since both were tried jointly on identical evidence.
Procedural History:
The procedural history of the case began with the conviction of both accused by the Special Sessions Court (NDPS Act) in 2005. The appellant, Vaddi Ratnam, then filed Criminal Appeal No. 1775 of 2005 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which dismissed her appeal and upheld her conviction and sentence in its impugned judgment dated January 4, 2013. Subsequently, in a separate proceeding, the High Court acquitted the co-accused (Accused No.1) vide judgment dated June 20, 2014, in Criminal Appeal No. 1775 of 2005, a decision which the State did not challenge. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing for acquittal based on the principle of parity, which the Court accepted, leading to her acquittal and the setting aside of the lower courts’ judgments against her.
READ ALSO:State Cannot Penalize Employee for Its Own Error, Rules Supreme Court
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court observed that the prosecution’s case was common against both accused, as they were tried jointly based on identical evidence. The Court took note of the High Court’s subsequent judgment, which had acquitted the co-accused (Accused No.1) on the grounds that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove “conscious possession” of the contraband, with key witnesses turning hostile and evidence being unclear. Since the State had accepted that acquittal and not assailed it, the Supreme Court found it just and necessary to apply the principle of parity. The Court held that in the interest of justice, it would be inequitable to sustain the conviction of the appellant when her co-accused, facing the same charges and evidence, had been acquitted. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant without re-appreciating the evidence.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgments of the High Court and the Trial Court. Consequently, the appellant, Vaddi Ratnam (Accused No.2), was acquitted of all charges under Section 8(c) read with Section 18(b) of the NDPS Act. The Court ordered that her bail bonds stand cancelled and the sureties be discharged. Any fine amount paid was directed to be refunded to her. This final decision was based solely on the application of the principle of parity, granting the appellant the same relief as her co-accused.
Case Details:
Case Title: Vaddi Ratnam vs. State of Andhra Pradesh Citation: 2025 INSC 1180 Criminal Appeal No.: Criminal Appeal No. 811 of 2016 Date of Judgement: September 17, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan
Download The Judgement Here