Conviction Not Based On Reliable & Corroborative Evidence: Gujarat High Court Acquits 3 Accused In 2002 Godhra Riots Case

The Gujarat High Court has acquitted three men who were accused in the riots that happened in Godhra in the year 2002.

The accused persons field Criminal Appeals before the Court, challenging the Judgment of the Fast Track Court, which convicted them.

A Single Bench of Justice Gita Gopi 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 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.”

The Bench said that 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.

Advocates Vijay Patel and Chirag Upadhyay appeared on behalf of the Appellants/Accused while Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Monali Bhatt appeared on behalf of the Respondent/State.

Facts of the Case

A trial was conducted against nine accused and out of them, four were convicted under Section 143 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) with one-month rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 100/- fine. Out of the four who were convicted, one accused person had died. It was alleged that the accused persons because of the incident in regard to Ayodhya issue, gathered in concert for prosecution of common object, formed unlawful assembly and committed the offence under Section 143 IPC.

They were allegedly armed with the instruments for setting fire, and with deadly weapons formed unlawful assembly, and the members using force, committed riots punishable under Section 147 IPC. It was further alleged that they set the Complainant’s and other witnesses’ shop on fire and committed the offence under Section 436 read with Section 149 IPC. It was also alleged that they broke the shops and caused damage by committing theft of goods and materials from the same. Challenging their conviction, three accused were before the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “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.”

The Court added that the evidence which was omitted to be raised before the accused of the witness naming them and connecting them to the crime whether has resulted into material prejudice to the accused is required to be examined on the facts of the case depending whether the accused had the opportunity to cross examine the witness.

“From the cross examination on record, it would transpire that the accused had cross examined the witness at length and the said evidence was before the accused during the trial. The charge was framed and the accused faced the trial. Hence, it cannot be said that there was any material prejudice, however, it can be considered that 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”, it further said.

The Court quoted the Supreme Court’s observation in the case of Kalicharan and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) i.e., “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 Court was of the view that 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, but 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.

“Explanation given by the accused, to the circumstances appearing in the evidence against accused, the answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration”, it also observed.

The Court remarked that remanding back the matter for recording the explanation of the accused would not be ideal, but it can be necessarily be said that omission to refer those circumstances has effected the appreciation by the Trial Court Judge.

“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”, it added.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Appeals, quashed the impugned Judgment, and acquitted the accused persons of all the charges levelled against them.

Cause Title- Sachinbhai Hasmukhbhai Patel & Anr. v. State of Gujarat (Neutral Citation: 2025:GUJHC:42165)

Appearance:

Appellants: Advocates Vijay Patel, Chirag Upadhyay, and H.L. Patel.

Respondent: APP Monali Bhatt

Click here to read/download the Judgment