New Delhi
The Supreme Court acquitted six accused in the riots case after Gujarat’s Godhra incident. The Supreme Court, while delivering the verdict, said that it is not enough to prove only to be present on the spot or arrest from there that they were part of an illegal crowd.
Justice P.S. A bench of Narasimha and Justice Manoj Mishra rejected the 2016 decision of the Gujarat High Court that overturned the decision to acquit six people in the 2002 riots after the Godhra incident.
The bench said that it is not enough to be present only on the spot or to be arrested from there that they (six people) were part of the illegal crowd of more than a thousand people.
Dhirubhai Bhailabhai Chauhan and five others were sentenced to one year in jail in the incident, in which the mob allegedly surrounded a cemetery and a mosque in Vadod village. All the appellant accused were arrested from the spot.
The lower court acquitted all 19 accused, but the High Court convicted 6 of them. An accused died while pending the case. 7 people, including the appellants, were named in the FIR.
The Supreme Court acquitted a lower court’s 2003 verdict and acquitted him. The court said that due to lack of any guilty role, his arrest on the spot is not decisive about his involvement in the incident in Vadod on 28 February 2002. Especially when neither any weapon of demolition was recovered from them nor any inflammatory material.
The bench said that the police opened fire, causing people to run around. An innocent person is also considered a criminal in such a clash. Therefore, the arrest of the appellants from the spot is not guaranteed to be guilty.
The bench said that collective clashes have a huge responsibility to ensure that no innocent person is convicted and his freedom is not taken away.
The Supreme Court said that the courts should be careful in such cases and avoid relying on the testimony of those witnesses who make a general statement without giving special reference to the accused or his role.
The Supreme Court said that this is because often (especially when the place of crime is a public place), people curious and start to see what is happening around. Such people are nothing more than only one audience. However, the witness may seem part of the illegal crowd.
The bench said, “Thus, as a rule of caution and not as a law, where the evidence on the record establishes the fact that a large number of people were present, only those who were accused of guilty of those who have been accused of direct acts. Sometimes in such cases, as a rule of precautions and not as a law of law, the courts have adopted a dominated test, meaning that it is a support, that is, it is a support, meaning that it is only a matter of support. A certain number of certain numbers should be done by witnesses which give a consistent details of the incident. ”
The bench said that in such a situation it is important for the court to determine whether the accused who is being prosecuted was part of an illegal mob or just a spectator. Such a determination is estimated based on the proven facts of the case.
The Supreme Court said that the appellars in the case were residents of the same village where riots were furious, so their presence at the scene is natural. The court said that not only this is not the case of the prosecution that they brought weapons or demolition equipment. The bench said, “The opposite approach taken by the High Court is completely inappropriate.”
