The Supreme Court of India has cautioned courts against convicting innocent bystanders in cases involving large group clashes. The apex court overturned the Gujarat High Court's decision and acquitted six individuals who were convicted of rioting and unlawful assembly in a case linked to the 2002 Gujarat riots.

The court emphasized that in incidents where a large number of people are present, the prosecution must provide specific evidence to prove an individual's involvement rather than relying on general statements by witnesses.

Background of the Case

The case pertains to an incident on February 28, 2002, when a violent mob surrounded a graveyard and mosque in Vadod village, Gujarat. The police intervened, leading to stone pelting, damage to police vehicles, and injuries to police personnel.

Read Also:- Supreme Court Contempt Petition Filed Against Punjab Officials Over Farmers' Eviction

The trial court had acquitted all 19 accused, citing a lack of direct evidence. However, the Gujarat High Court reversed the acquittal for six individuals, stating that their presence at the scene established their participation in the unlawful assembly.

These individuals appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that their mere presence in the village at the time of the incident did not prove their involvement in rioting.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra, ruled that mere presence at the crime scene is not enough to establish guilt. It stressed the importance of distinguishing between active participants and innocent bystanders in cases of large-scale violence.

"In cases of group clashes where a large number of persons are involved, an onerous duty is cast upon the courts to ensure that no innocent bystander is convicted and deprived of his liberty."

The court underscored the necessity of corroborative evidence and specific attribution of roles in such cases. It ruled that in the absence of any overt act or incriminating material, convicting individuals solely based on their presence would be unjustified.

Read Also:- Supreme Court: Liberal Approach Essential in Condoning Delay When Case Merits Require Examination

The Supreme Court outlined key aspects of legal principles concerning group clashes and unlawful assembly:

Mere Presence is Not Proof of Guilt

• Being present at a crime scene, especially in public spaces, does not automatically imply participation in an unlawful assembly.

Burden of Proof on Prosecution

• The prosecution must provide clear evidence of active participation or common intent in the criminal act.

Reliability of Witness Testimonies

• Courts should be cautious while relying on general statements from witnesses that do not specifically attribute actions to the accused.

Role of Circumstantial Evidence

• Without weapons, inflammable substances, or other incriminating evidence, it is difficult to establish guilt.

The Supreme Court overturned the Gujarat High Court's ruling and reinstated the trial court's acquittal of the six accused.

"In the instant case, the appellants were residents of the same village where riots broke out, therefore their presence at the spot is natural and by itself not incriminating. More so, because it is not the case of the prosecution that they came with arms or instruments of destruction."

Read Also:- Supreme Court Reaffirms Consumer's Right to Approach Forum Despite Arbitration Clause

The court further noted that the police's actions, including firing shots to disperse the crowd, created a chaotic situation where even an innocent bystander could have been mistaken for a rioter.

"Mere presence of the appellants at the spot, or their arrest therefrom, was not sufficient to prove that they were a part of the unlawful assembly."

With these observations, the court dismissed the convictions and ordered that the appellants, if on bail, need not surrender.

Case Title: DHIRUBHAI BHAILALBHAI CHAUHAN & ANR. VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.