“Mere Presence Not Proof of Guilt”: Supreme Court Restores Acquittal in Gujarat Riots Case, Citing “No Evidence of Unlawful Assembly” and “Failure to Exclude Innocent Bystanders”
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Supreme Court has set aside the conviction and sentences of six individuals who were previously found guilty under Sections 143, 147, 153A, 295, 436, and 332 of the Indian Penal Code. The Division Bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra allowed the appeals challenging a High Court decision that had partly reversed a trial court’s acquittal in connection with incidents that occurred during the 2002 Vadod village riots in Gujarat. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish that the appellants were part of the unlawful assembly responsible for the alleged acts of rioting and destruction of property. The trial court’s acquittal was restored, and the appellants were discharged from their bail obligations.
The prosecution’s case stemmed from a First Information Report lodged on 28 February 2002 by a police officer, stating that while patrolling, the officer and his team received information that a mob had surrounded a mosque and graveyard at Vadod village. Upon reaching the site, the police instructed the mob to disperse. The mob allegedly responded with stone-pelting, causing injuries to police personnel and damage to vehicles. The police resorted to the use of tear gas and firing to control the situation, which led to a stampede. In the ensuing disorder, seven individuals, including the appellants, were apprehended on the spot.
A charge sheet was subsequently filed against 19 individuals, including the seven arrested, leading to the initiation of Sessions Trial No. 119 of 2003. The accused were charged under Sections 143, 147, 153A, 295, 436, and 332 of the Indian Penal Code. The Additional Sessions Judge acquitted all 19 accused on 11 July 2005, granting them the benefit of the doubt due to evidentiary shortcomings. The trial court recorded that the police witnesses gave “stereotypical” depositions and were unable to identify any specific accused. The court noted that during cross-examination, the officers could not clarify which police personnel apprehended which accused, or what specific acts were attributed to the accused before their arrest.
The trial court also considered the testimony of PW-2, an eyewitness, and observed that this witness faced material contradictions, particularly regarding his vantage point during the incident and the lighting conditions that would have enabled him to identify the accused. Additionally, the investigating officer (PW-20) confirmed that no damage was caused to PW-2’s house during the incident, undermining claims made during testimony. Furthermore, there was no recovery of incriminating articles or weapons from the accused at the time of arrest.
On appeal, the High Court, while maintaining the acquittal of accused numbers 8 to 19, reversed the acquittal in respect of six appellants (accused numbers 1 to 5 and 7). The High Court observed that since the appellants were arrested on the spot and named in the FIR, their presence at the scene of crime stood proven beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court found that this was sufficient to convict them as members of an unlawful assembly responsible for rioting and related offenses.
The appellants challenged this decision before the Supreme Court. Counsel for the appellants argued that mere presence at the site, particularly in their own village where no curfew was in place, could not establish their involvement in an unlawful assembly. It was submitted that the prosecution failed to prove any overt acts on the part of the appellants or their possession of arms or incendiary materials that could link them to the alleged offenses.
Opposing the appeal, counsel for the State contended that in cases of rioting, it is often challenging to identify specific roles played by each individual in a mob. It was argued that the appellants' arrest on the spot, along with their inclusion in the FIR, sufficiently established their membership in the unlawful assembly.
The Supreme Court examined the factual matrix and the legal submissions. The court recorded that the riots took place at night when no curfew orders were in effect. It observed that “the rioting crowd was very large comprising of over one thousand people” and that “by the time of the incident, curfew was not imposed in the area concerned, therefore movement of residents of that area was not prohibited.”
The court noted that the appellants were villagers and that their mere presence in the vicinity was not incriminating by itself. It recorded that “there was no evidence that at the time of arrest the accused-appellants were carrying instruments of destruction, such as an iron rod, stone, petrol or any inflammable substance.” The court further recorded that the evidence of PW-2 and PW-4, which had been relied upon at trial, was discarded by the High Court itself for lacking credibility and consistency.
The Bench stated, “in cases of group clashes where a large number of persons are involved, an onerous duty is cast upon the courts to ensure that no innocent bystander is convicted and deprived of his liberty.” It observed that “mere presence of the appellants at the scene of crime, without anything further, is insufficient to hold them members of the unlawful assembly.”
The Bench concluded that the prosecution failed to establish that the appellants engaged in any conduct that indicated participation in the unlawful assembly. The court also considered a defense suggestion that the appellants were attempting to douse the fire, but stated, “this does not rule out their presence as a bystander or a spectator.” The court found that neither this suggestion nor their arrest at the scene was conclusive proof of their guilt.
The court recorded, “in our view, therefore, on basis of their mere presence at the scene of crime, an inference could not have been drawn that the appellants were a part of the unlawful assembly.” It further noted, “the view to the contrary taken by the High Court is completely unjustified.”
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court’s order and restoring the acquittal recorded by the trial court. The court directed, “if the appellants are on bail, they need not surrender. Their bail bonds, if any, are discharged.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For Appellants: Mr. Alapati Sahithya Krishna, Advocate
For Respondet (State of Gujarat): Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Advocate
Case Title: Dhirubhai Bhailalbhai Chauhan & Anr. vs State of Gujarat & Ors. with Kiritbhai Manibhai Patel & Ors. vs The State of Gujarat
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 381
Case Number: Criminal Appeal Nos. 816/2016 & 817/2016
Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Justice Manoj Misra
[Read/Download order]
