Gujarat High Court overturns 2006 convictions in the 2002 riots case citing unreliable evidence and flawed identification. Court rules that no credible proof linked accused to arson or unlawful assembly.
Ahmedabad: On July 28, In a significant judgment delivered after 19 years, the Gujarat High Court has acquitted three men who were earlier convicted and sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment in a case linked to the 2002 post-Godhra riots.
The Court found that their conviction by a Fast Track Court in Anand in 2006 was based on unreliable evidence and improper legal reasoning.
The case relates to the violent incidents that took place in Anand’s Lotia Bagod area on March 1, 2002, just days after the tragic burning of the Sabarmati Express coach in Godhra on February 27, 2002, which had killed 59 people and sparked statewide riots.
The Court remarked on the failure to put crucial evidence before the accused during their examination under Section 313 of the CrPC:
The Court stated:
“The failure to put material circumstances to the accused amounts to serious irregularity, which may vitiate the trial if the irregularity has prejudiced the accused.”
Though acknowledging that the witnesses had been cross-examined, the Court pointed out the prejudice caused due to the accused not being able to personally deny or explain the evidence:
The Bench noted:
“The accused were adversely affected since they had no opportunity themselves to deny this evidence against them. But it will not only on that count vitiate the whole trial.”
Considering the passage of time and the nature of the omissions, the Court refused to send the case back to the trial court:
The Court emphasized:
“Here the present matter is of the year 2005, the judgment was delivered on 29.05.2006 and now it has been more than 19 years which has passed, therefore, it would not be in the interest of the accused to remit or remand the matter to the trial Court from the stage of recording the supplementary statement of the concerned accused under Section 313 of Cr.PC.”
To reinforce its view, the High Court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Kalicharan & Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) and reiterated the importance of confronting the accused with incriminating circumstances:
The Court quoted the Supreme Court’s observation:
“If the accused is not explained the important circumstances appearing against him in the evidence on which his conviction is sought to be based, the accused will not be in a position to explain the said circumstances brought on record against him. He will not be able to properly defend himself.”
The High Court also underlined the principle that only after full evidence is revealed can an accused provide an adequate defence:
The Court observed:
“It is only after the entire evidence is rolled out, the accused would be in a position to express his defence and to give explanation to the circumstances appearing in evidence against him, and such an opportunity given to the accused is part of a fair trial.”
It warned that failing to conduct proper questioning under Section 313 could lead to a flawed understanding of the evidence:
The Court stated:
“If no due consideration is given and such exercise of questioning the accused is done in an unsatisfactory manner then it may result in imperfect appreciation of evidence.”
Lastly, responding to the defence’s argument that Section 149 IPC (unlawful assembly) should not apply if fewer than five individuals are convicted, the Court provided a nuanced legal clarification:
The Court explained:
“The contention of learned advocate Mr. Vijay Patel for the appellants that conviction of less than five persons cannot sustain under Section 149 IPC, the same can be dealt with by answering that if the unlawful assembly of more than five persons have been put to trial and large number of accused are acquitted and the remaining who have been convicted are less than five cannot vitiate the conviction under Section 149 read with the substantive offence if the Court has taken care to find that there were other persons who might not have been identified or convicted but were party to the crime and together constituted the statutory number.”
The three appellants—Sachinbhai Hasmukhbhai Patel, Ashok Patel, and Ashok Gupta—were accused of being part of an unlawful assembly that damaged and set fire to several shops, most of which were allegedly owned by members of the Muslim community.
A bench led by Justice Gita Gopi delivered the judgment while allowing the appeals filed by the three appellants, setting aside the May 29, 2006 conviction and sentence by the Anand Fast Track Court.
The accused were previously convicted under several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Sections 143, 147, and 436 read with Section 149, for offences like rioting, unlawful assembly, and mischief by fire.
While nine individuals were initially tried in the case, only four were convicted, and one of the convicted persons had died in 2009. The rest were acquitted earlier.
The High Court found multiple flaws in the trial court’s appreciation of evidence and raised serious doubts regarding the identity of the accused, their participation in the alleged crimes, and the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.
The court noted in its detailed judgment,
“The learned trial court judge had erred in the appreciation of the evidence. Conviction is not based on reliable and corroborative evidence. The identification of the accused has not been proved during the trial,”
The prosecution had alleged that the appellants were part of a mob that gathered in violation of prohibitory orders issued by the district magistrate under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and set several shops on fire.
Also Read: 2002 Godhra Train Burning Case| Supreme Court to Hear the Matter on February 13
However, the High Court concluded that this claim was not supported by credible evidence.
The Court further observed:
“The learned trial court judge had erred in the appreciation of the evidence. Conviction is not based on reliable and corroborative evidence. The identification of the accused has not been proved during the trial.”
While examining the evidence, the Court found that the prosecution had primarily relied on the testimony of one witness (PW3), who had identified the accused in court, but there was no Test Identification Parade (TIP) conducted during the investigation to confirm this identification.
This led the Court to observe:
“In cases where accused is a stranger to the witness and there has been no TIP, the trial Court should be very cautious while accepting the dock identification by such a witness. In absence of TIP, the dock identification of accused will always remain doubtful.”
The court pointed out that PW2 and PW14, who slightly supported the case, were closely related individuals and were not eyewitnesses to the incident.
The statement of the main witness was also recorded several weeks after the incident, raising the possibility of manipulation or false implication.
One of the most striking issues was the prosecution’s reliance on a written statement (Exhibit 35) supposedly given by the complainant, which was undated, not formally received by the police, and lacked any endorsement or corroboration. The High Court firmly rejected this piece of evidence.
The court held,
“Exhibit 35 cannot be accepted in evidence unless the recipient of the document admits of having received it, otherwise in every trial, witnesses would produce such statement to improvise their case and Court would be relying on it for their conclusion, which is not permissible in law,”
Moreover, the application of Section 149 IPC, which deals with unlawful assembly and requires at least five persons with a common unlawful objective, was deemed flawed.
With only four individuals convicted and the others acquitted, the legal foundation for invoking Section 149 was found to be weak and unsupported by precedent.
In conclusion, the Court stated:
“The learned Trial Court Judge had erred in the appreciation of the evidence. Conviction is not based on reliable and corroborative evidence. The identification of the accused have not been proved during the trial. The present appellants whether were the member of the unlawful assembly was not proved, and that they had common object of creating arson had not been proved, and any act of the appellants accused in prosecution of the common object, of setting things on fire and damaging the private and public property had not been proved during the trial.”
Accordingly, the Gujarat High Court allowed the appeals and quashed all convictions and sentences against Sachin Patel, Ashok Patel, and Ashok Gupta, stating there was no solid proof against them and the trial court had erred in convicting them without reliable evidence.
Case Title:
Sachinbhai Hasmukhbhai Patel & Anr. vs. State of Gujarat
Click Here to Read More Reports On Godhra Riots
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
