The Gujarat High Court recently overturned the convictions of three men who had been sentenced in 2006 by a sessions court in Anand for their involvement in rioting and participation in an unlawful assembly during the aftermath of the 2002 Post‑Godhra riots. These men had been convicted in connection with incidents where a mob set fire to shops at various locations in Anand. The high court’s decision arose from appeals filed by Sachinbhai Hasmukhbhai Patel and Ashokbhai Jashbhai Patel in one appeal and Ashok alias Banarasi Bharatbhai Gupta in another.
At the core of the high court’s ruling was the absence of any Test Identification Parade (TIP) conducted during the investigation. The court noted that no such parade had been organized, casting considerable doubt on the credibility of dock identification in the courtroom. It emphasized that in situations where the accused are strangers to the identifying witness, dock identification without a prior TIP remains highly dubious. Moreover, the court observed that the witness did not explain how the accused were recognized amidst a crowd of over one hundred individuals, nor did the witness specify the role played by each accused during the alleged incidents.
Justice Gita Gopi delivered the judgment, detailing that the prosecution’s case hinged virtually entirely on the testimony of a single witness, identified as PW3. The trial court had convicted four out of nine accused based on this testimony and acquitted five others. However, the high court determined that the identification evidence presented by PW3 was not of sufficiently sterling quality to compensate for the lack of a TIP, rendering it inadmissible as reliable proof. The court reiterated that while absence of TIP does not necessarily doom the prosecution’s case, where the identifying evidence lacks independence or certainty, it cannot sustain a conviction.
In examining the legal framework, the high court elaborated that while the existence of an unlawful assembly must be established, it must also be demonstrated that the accused were members of such an assembly and acted in furtherance of the common object. Mere presence at the scene, particularly when allegations involve a multitude of persons and limited specific actions attributed to the accused, cannot be equated with active participation. The court underscored that the witness had failed to detail the overt acts of each individual accused, especially in a serious allegation involving rioting with deadly weapons and burning of property. Without such particulars, convicting individuals becomes legally untenable.
Consequently, the high court allowed the two appeals, quashing the convictions of Sachinbhai Hasmukhbhai Patel, Ashokbhai Jashbhai Patel, and Ashok alias Banarasi Bharatbhai Gupta. Their sentences, involving five years’ imprisonment under Section 149 (common object of unlawful assembly) and six months for rioting under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, were set aside in light of the doubts surrounding witness identification and the flawed evidentiary foundation.
The court’s detailed review spanned 98 pages, wherein it explained the necessity of cautious application of dock identification in the absence of TIP and the requirement for high-quality evidentiary support when labelling individuals as participants in large-scale unlawful assemblies. It stressed that unidentified bystanders should not be criminally labeled without clear demonstration of action or intent tied to the accused, especially where the only evidence stems from generalized testimony without corroborative detail regarding individual conduct.
Overall, the ruling reflects a reaffirmation of due process safeguards in criminal trials involving mob violence and group clashes. The high court’s reasoning highlights the judiciary’s insistence on precise procedural standards in identifying accused persons and delineating their specific roles in collective criminality. The decision underscores that convictions must not rely on mere presence or ambiguous witness testimony, but require unmistakable evidence linking individuals to alleged crimes within the context of group acts.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.