Supreme Court Sets Aside Convictions in Gujarat Riots Case, “No Evidence to Infer Membership of Unlawful Assembly from Mere Presence”
Safiya Malik
The Supreme Court has set aside the conviction of six individuals in connection with charges of rioting and unlawful assembly during the 2002 Vadod village incident, restoring the acquittal earlier granted by the Trial Court. The Bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra allowed the criminal appeals on 21 March 2025, holding that the prosecution failed to establish that the appellants were part of the unlawful assembly, stating that “mere presence at the scene of crime” does not, by itself, prove culpability.
In a judgment that reinstated the benefit of doubt extended by the Trial Court, the Supreme Court held that there was insufficient evidence to show that the appellants had actively participated in the unlawful assembly. The Bench also took note of deficiencies in the prosecution’s evidence, including the lack of specific roles attributed to the appellants and absence of incriminating materials found during their arrest.
The appeals arose from a prosecution based on a first information report (FIR) lodged by a police officer on 28 February 2002, which alleged that a mob had surrounded a graveyard and mosque at Vadod village. Upon the arrival of police, the mob allegedly pelted stones, causing injuries to police personnel and damage to official vehicles. Tear gas shells and gunfire were deployed to disperse the mob. Seven individuals were arrested at the scene, with a total of nineteen persons subsequently charged under Sections 143, 147, 153A, 295, 436, and 332 of the Indian Penal Code.
The matter was tried before the Additional Sessions Judge, who, by judgment dated 11 July 2005, acquitted all nineteen accused. The Trial Court noted that police witnesses failed to identify specific individuals involved in the offence and could not confirm who apprehended which accused. It also observed discrepancies in the deposition of prosecution witnesses, including omissions and contradictions regarding the identification of the accused during cross-examination.
The State of Gujarat challenged the acquittal in the High Court. The High Court, while maintaining the acquittal of accused nos. 8 to 19, convicted six of the accused, who had been arrested on the spot, under charges relating to unlawful assembly and rioting. The High Court found that the presence of these six individuals at the scene, along with their naming in the FIR, was sufficient to establish their involvement.
Appealing before the Supreme Court, counsel for the appellants contended that the conviction was unsustainable given the lack of direct evidence attributing overt acts to the accused. It was submitted that the appellants were residents of Vadod village, where the riots took place, and that their mere presence in a public area where no curfew or prohibitory orders were in force could not justify a finding of guilt. It was further argued that prosecution witnesses failed to attribute any specific violent act or incitement to the appellants, and that the prosecution did not recover any weapons or incriminating articles from them at the time of arrest.
On behalf of the State, it was submitted that the presence of the appellants at the scene of rioting was sufficient to infer their participation in the unlawful assembly and that the appellants had failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for their presence during the incident.
The Supreme Court recorded that the riot involved a crowd exceeding a thousand people and occurred during nighttime hours, noting that “the riots in question took place in the night hours when there were no curfew orders.” It further recorded that “out of that many people, only seven were named in the FIR being the ones who were arrested on the spot.”
The court examined the evidence regarding the arrest of the appellants and recorded, “though the police allegedly arrested seven persons on the spot, no satisfactory evidence was led as regards (a) what those seven did before their arrest, (b) who arrested them and from where.” The court further noted 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, etc., having potential to cause damage to property or person.”
Referring to the prosecution witnesses, the court recorded that “except the statement of PW-2 and PW-4, which was discarded by the High Court for cogent reasons, there is no specific evidence that the accused-appellants indulged in any act of incitement, mischief or violence.”
The court discussed the principle applicable to large-scale rioting cases and recorded, “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 further recorded that, “in such type of cases, the courts must be circumspect and reluctant to rely upon the testimony of witnesses who make general statements without specific reference to the accused, or the role played by him.”
The Bench further recorded that the appellants, being residents of Vadod village, could have been present as bystanders. “In the instant case, the appellants were residents of the same village where riots broke out, therefore their presence at the spot is natural and by itself not incriminating,” the court recorded. The Bench also noted that, “in such a situation, to sustain their conviction, the prosecution ought to have led some reliable evidence to demonstrate that they were a part of the unlawful assembly and not just spectator.”
On the argument concerning the defense counsel’s suggestion that the accused were trying to douse the fire when apprehended, the court recorded, “the suggestion given by the defense counsel to the investigating officer, during cross-examination, that the accused were trying to douse the fire when they were apprehended, though might be useful to confirm their presence at the spot, cannot be used to infer that accused were a part of the unlawful assembly.”
The court concluded its analysis stating, “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.”
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and reversed the conviction of the appellants, restoring the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. The court ordered, “the appeals are, therefore, allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court is set aside, and the order of the Trial Court is restored. If the appellants are on bail, they need not surrender. Their bail bonds, if any, are discharged.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellants: Alapati Sahithya Krishna, Advocate
For the Respondents: Ruchi Kohli, Advocate for the State of Gujarat
Case Title: Dhirubhai Bhailalbhai Chauhan and Another v. State of Gujarat and Others; Kiritbhai Manibhai Patel and Others v. State of Gujarat
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 381
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 816 of 2016 and Criminal Appeal No. 817 of 2016
Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Justice Manoj Misra
[Read/Download order]
