FSL Report Exonerates Accused: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Of Six Men Accused Of Killing 3 British Nationals In 2002 Prantij Riots

The Gujarat High Court has upheld a 2015 Sessions Court order acquitting six men accused in the killing of three British nationals near Prantij during the 2002 post-Godhra riots.

The Court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, citing procedural lapses, unreliable identification, and the anonymous nature of the initial allegations.

Lack of Proper Identification Parade

The Division Bench of Justice A.Y. Kogje and Justice Samir J. Dave noted in its March 6 order that no test identification parade (TIP) was conducted in the matter, and the dock identification occurred for the first time after a gap of six years.

The Court emphasized that such identification could not be considered substantive evidence to convict the accused. "The manner of the identification during the testimony of PW-68 (the complainant) and that too via video conferencing... such an identification may not be treated as absolute identification to be substantive evidence on which a conviction can be based or, more so, an acquittal can be reversed," the Bench observed.

Prosecution's Case Based on Anonymous Fax

The Court further noted that the investigation was not initiated based on independent eyewitness testimony but was instead triggered by an anonymous fax message sent to the British High Commission. This fax named the accused individuals, and based on it, the Special Investigation Team (SIT) took up the case.

"The root lies in the anonymous fax letter which was addressed to the British High Commission, narrating the names of the respondents as accused persons," the Court remarked. The Bench referred to the testimony of PW-75, an officer from the British Consulate, who confirmed receiving an anonymous fax that listed 10 suspects. The information was forwarded to the Director General of Police and the Investigating Officer, forming the basis of the case.

Sessions Court's Reasoning Upheld

The Sessions Court had previously considered the complainant's evidence, the FIR, and the statements of the investigating officer before concluding that the description of the accused given by witnesses was vague and insufficient to secure a conviction. The High Court concurred with this view, stating, "The Sessions Court has rightly concluded that such an identification (dock identification) cannot be the sole ground to base conviction."

The complainant's identification of the accused took place via video conferencing, raising further doubts about its credibility. The High Court emphasized that the complainant (PW-68) was a stranger to the area and had no prior acquaintance with the accused. Given these factors, the dock identification conducted after six years was not considered reliable evidence.

Discrepancies in Witness Testimonies

Analyzing the complainant's cross-examination, the Court noted that he had previously admitted difficulty in identifying the accused due to the passage of time. However, he denied the defense's assertion that he had failed to provide descriptions of the attackers in 2002.

The Court also highlighted inconsistencies in the accounts of different witnesses. While PW-68 claimed that the vehicle was intercepted by a mob of 15-20 people, another independent witness, PW-19 Pravin Patel, stated that the mob consisted of 150-200 individuals. The court found the latter testimony to be more consistent across different statements.

Furthermore, forensic evidence, including a lie detector test, failed to place the accused at the crime scene. "The conclusion of the FSL report on each of the accused-respondents exonerates them from being in the line of suspect," the Bench observed.

Facts of the Case

The incident occurred on February 28, 2002, when complainant Imran Mohammad Salim Dawood, his uncles Saeed Safik Dawood and Sakil Abdul Hai Dawood, and another British national, Mohamad Abdulbhai Aswar, were traveling back from Agra and Jaipur in a vehicle driven by Yusuf.

According to the complainant, their vehicle was intercepted by a mob carrying sticks and sharp weapons on the highway near Prantij. The mob allegedly attacked the passengers, causing fatal injuries to Aswar and the driver. The vehicle was then set on fire, and the complainant’s uncles were last seen running toward nearby fields while being chased by the mob. The complainant and Aswar were rescued by a police patrol van and taken to the hospital, where Aswar was declared dead.

Later, relatives of the missing uncles, accompanied by British High Commission officials and local police, found small bone fragments near the attack site. These fragments were sent for forensic examination, with blood samples from the victims’ families used for identification.

Investigation and Legal Proceedings

In March 2002, an anonymous fax received by the British High Commission implicated one of the accused, Pravinbhai Jivabhai Patel, along with "a mob of 50-100 persons." The British Deputy High Commissioner subsequently wrote to the Gujarat Director General of Police, urging further investigation.

Following a Supreme Court directive in National Human Rights Commission v. State of Gujarat (2003), a Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted in 2008 to re-examine the case. The complainant’s statement was recorded later that year, and in 2009, a sessions court framed charges against the six accused under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Section 302 (murder), Section 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), and Section 153A (promoting enmity between different groups).

However, in 2015, the Sessions Court acquitted all six accused, citing lack of conclusive evidence. The Gujarat government and the complainant challenged this acquittal before the High Court, which has now upheld the lower court’s decision.

Conclusion

Dismissing the Appeal, the Gujarat High Court ruled that there was no compelling reason to interfere with the trial court’s acquittal order.

"The trial court, after going through the documentary and oral evidence, rightly concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt," the Court stated.

Cause Title: Imran Dawood v. Patel Mithabhai Pashabhai & Ors. [Neutral Citation No. 2025:GUJHC:19136-DB]

Appearance:-

Appellant: Advocate Nasir Saiyed

Respondent: Senior Advocate RC Jani, Additional Advocate General Mitesh Amin Advocates Vijay Patel, Devanshiba Rana, Monali H. Bhatt (APP)

Click here to read/download the Judgment