The Supreme Court on March 21 acquitted six persons from Gujarat in a post-Godhra riots case [Dhirubhai Bhailalbhai Chauhan v. State of Gujarat]..A Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra observed that mere presence at the crime scene is insufficient to establish guilt, particularly in cases of large-scale rioting where innocent bystanders may be mistaken for perpetrators.The Bench added in such cases, courts must exercise caution and avoid relying on witness testimonies that make vague, generalized statements without clearly identifying the accused or specifying their role in the incident."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. 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 Court said..The case is related to communal riots that took place in February 2002 in Gujarat's Vadod village following the Godhra train burning incident. According to the prosecution, a mob of over 1,000 people gathered around a graveyard and a mosque. When the police arrived and ordered the mob to disperse, they were attacked with stone pelting, resulting in injuries to police personnel and damage to police vehicles. In response, the police fired tear gas and gunshots, leading to a stampede-like situation, during which seven individuals were arrested on the spot.Following an investigation, 19 individuals, including the appellants before the Supreme Court, were charged under Sections 143 (unlawful assembly), 147 (rioting), 153(A) (promoting enmity between groups), 295 (defiling a place of worship), 436 (mischief by fire or explosives), and 332 (voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from duty) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). In July 2005, a trial court acquitted all the accused citing a lack of specific evidence. The Court noted that the police witnesses gave generic statements and failed to identify any accused individuals or their specific roles. Further, there were contradictions in the testimony of a key prosecution, particularly regarding how he allegedly identified the accused. .However, in May 2016, the Gujarat High Court partly reversed the acquittal. While the High Court maintained the acquittal of twelve accused persons, it convicted six accused, reasoning that their arrest at the scene of the crime confirmed their presence beyond doubt. Meanwhile, one accused died while the case was pending. .The matter finally reached the Supreme Court after those who were convicted by the High Court appealed the verdict passed against them. The apex court held that the prosecution failed to provide specific evidence linking these accused to the acts of violence or incitement.“Here no evidence has come on record to indicate that the appellants incited the mob, or they themselves acted in any manner indicative of them being a part of the unlawful assembly. The only evidence in that regard came from PW-2 and PW-4 (prosecution witnesses), but that has been discarded by the high court for cogent reasons which need not be repeated here,” the top court said..The Court noted that without any specific incriminating role attributed to the appellants, their arrest at the scene alone does not conclusively establish their involvement in the unlawful assembly.The Court added that no incriminating evidence such as weapons, inflammable materials or riot-related objects were recovered from the accused at the time of their arrest."In absence of any inculpatory role ascribed to the appellants, their arrest on the spot is not conclusive that they were a part of the unlawful assembly, particularly when neither instrument of destruction nor any inflammatory material was seized from them," the Court said..The Court further observed police opened fire, triggering chaos as people scattered in all directions. In the ensuing commotion, even an innocent bystander could easily be mistaken for a miscreant. Therefore, the mere fact that the appellants were arrested at the scene does not automatically establish their guilt.Accordingly, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellants, overturned the High Court’s conviction and restored the trial court’s decision to acquit them. .The appellants were represented by advocates Taruna Singh Gohil, Hetvi K Patel, Taniya Bansal, Pradhuman Gohil, Alapati Sahithya Krishna, Rushabh N Kapadia and Vikash Singh.The respondents were represented by Senior Advocate Ruchi Kohli and advocates Swati Ghildiyal, Devyani Bhatt and Srishti Mishra. .[Read Judgment]
