Case Name: DHIRUBHAI BHAILALBHAI CHAUHAN & ANR Vs.STATE OF GUJARAT
& ORS.
WITH
KIRITBHAI MANIBHAI PATEL & ORS Vs.THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: CRIMINAL APPEAL No.816 OF 2016, CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 817 OF 2016
Date: March 21, 2025.
Quorum: JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAMSRI NARASIMHA, JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA
FACTS
The case is based on riots in Vadod village, Gujarat, on February 28, 2002, during the night. The curfew was not imposed then. The rioting mob of more than a thousand people led to police action with the use of fire to scatter the mob, resulting in a stampede.
In the melee, seven people were apprehended on the spot and mentioned in the FIR. Of these, six were subsequently convicted by the High Court since one of the accused had died during the trial. Charges were brought by the police against a total of 19 accused, including those arrested on the spot. The trial court acquitted all 19 suspects on account of wide gaps in the prosecution’s evidence, such as the absence of concrete evidence regarding the conduct of the seven suspects at the scene and the absence of any incriminating documents in their possession.
The High Court subsequently overruled the trial court’s acquittal of six of the accused, convicting them of being members of an illegal assembly that rioted, among other charges under the IPC.
ISSUES
- Was the High Court correct in overturning the trial court’s acquittal of the appellants?
- Is it enough that the appellants are present at the scene of the crime to make them liable as members of the unlawful assembly?
- Did the prosecution present adequate and credible evidence to establish the participation of the appellants in the unlawful assembly?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
The case involves the application of the following provisions of the Indian Penal Code:
Section 143: Punishment for being a member of an unlawful assembly.
Section 147: Rioting.
Section 153(A): Promoting enmity between groups on grounds of religion, race, etc.
Section 295: Injuring or defiling a place of worship with intent to insult religion.
Section 436: Mischief by fire or explosive substance causing destruction.
Section 332: Voluntarily causing hurt to deter a public servant from duty.
ARGUMENTS
APPELLANT CONTENTION:
- The appellants argued that their presence at the scene was natural given they were residents of the area and that curfew restrictions were not in place at the time.
- They claimed that no evidence was presented regarding any overt actions or incitement on their part.
- The appellants emphasized the lack of incriminating materials such as weapons or inflammatory substances found in their possession.
- They further argued that the prosecution’s case relied solely on vague witness testimonies and lacked reliable evidence to establish their participation in the unlawful assembly.
RESPONDENT CONTENTION:
- The State argued that the appellants were members of the unlawful assembly by virtue of their presence at the location and subsequent arrest.
- Their actions were argued to have contributed to the rioting and communal tensions, and they were rightfully convicted under the IPC.
- The respondents argued that the appellants were unable to prove innocence or offer a reasonable explanation for being at the scene.
ANALYSIS
The Court acknowledged the difficulties in cases featuring large mobs, where innocent bystanders could be mistaken for culprits. It highlighted the need for particular and corroborative evidence to convict those involved in such scenarios.
The prosecution did not provide evidence on the appellants’ conduct before they were arrested or connecting them to incitement, violence, or destruction.
The High Court ruled out the testimonies of witnesses (PW-2 and PW-4) that were incriminating to the appellants, and found them to be unreliable.
The Court held that merely being present at the scene of the crime would not suffice for attribution of guilt unless there was evidence of an active act or possession of incriminating evidence.
Hence, the High Court’s sole reliance on the appellants’ presence at the scene to convict was held to be unjustified.
JUDGMENT
The appeals were granted, and the judgment of conviction by the High Court against the appellants was quashed. The Supreme Court reinstated the order of acquittal of all the accused by the trial court. The Supreme Court held that the appellants’ mere presence at the spot, in the absence of any proof of an overt act, would not make them members of the unlawful assembly.
The Court released the bail bonds of the appellants and instructed that they do not need to surrender.
CONCLUSION
This case demonstrates the court’s obligation in protecting individuals from wrongful conviction, particularly cases detained under circumstances regarding large-group public disturbances. This judgment emphasizes the importance of credible evidence and protects the presumption of innocence; it serves as an important precedent in ensuring justice to the cases involving group clashes.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY MARTHALA JOSHIKA REDDY
