Supreme Court Acquits Six Individuals Convicted for Rioting During Gujarat Riots

The Supreme Court recently acquitted six individuals who were convicted for rioting and unlawful assembly during the 2002 Gujarat riots. These individuals were initially acquitted by the trial court of charges under sections 143, 147, 153(A), 295, 436, and 332 of the Indian Penal Code. However, their acquittal was later overturned by the Gujarat High Court, which convicted them based solely on their presence at the scene of the violence. The accused were allegedly part of a large mob that surrounded a graveyard and mosque in Vadod village, Gujarat, and engaged in stone-pelting, damaging police vehicles, and injuring police officers on February 28, 2002.

The accused persons appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that their mere presence at the scene should not be sufficient to prove their involvement in the unlawful assembly. They contended that no overt act had been attributed to them, and eyewitness testimonies were discarded by both the trial and the High Court.

Arguments

• Appellants: The accused argued that they were residents of the village, and their presence at the scene was natural due to the circumstances of the riots. They claimed there was no evidence to show their active participation in the unlawful assembly, and their presence alone could not be used to convict them.
• State: The State contended that in cases of rioting, where it is difficult to particularize individual roles, proving the presence of the accused at the scene is enough to convict them as part of the unlawful assembly.

Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court set aside the Gujarat High Court's decision and acquitted the accused, emphasizing the following points:

1. Mere Presence Does Not Incriminate: The Court held that mere presence at the scene of a crime does not automatically make someone a member of an unlawful assembly. To convict someone, there must be evidence of active participation or a common object of the assembly. In this case, the accused had no overt acts attributed to them, nor were they found with weapons or materials that could be used for destruction.
   
   
2. Innocent Bystanders: The Court recognized that many individuals might have been innocent bystanders or onlookers, merely present out of curiosity, especially in such a chaotic situation. Their presence should not be a basis for their conviction without additional evidence of their participation in the unlawful assembly.
   
   
3. Role of Witness Testimony: The Court emphasized that in cases involving large crowds or group clashes, general statements by witnesses, without specific reference to the accused or their role, are insufficient to convict individuals. The Court called for caution in relying on such testimonies, especially when a large number of people are involved and the crowd may have included innocent onlookers.
   
   
4. No Overt Act or Incriminating Evidence: The accused were neither carrying weapons nor were any inflammatory materials found with them. In addition, there was no evidence showing their active participation in the violent actions. Their arrest on the spot, in the chaos following police firing, was not conclusive of their guilt.
   
   
5. Burden of Proof in Group Clashes: The Court noted that in cases with a large number of people, only those individuals against whom an overt act is alleged should be convicted. It also referred to a plurality test, suggesting that conviction should be supported by consistent eyewitness accounts.

Case Title: Dhirubhai Bhailalbhai Chauhan & Anr. vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.