The Supreme Court has upheld the acquittal order passed by the Trial Court and observed that on the basis of the mere presence of the accused persons at the scene of crime, an inference could not have been drawn that they were a part of unlawful assembly.

The appeals before the Apex Court challenged the common judgment of the Gujarat High Court whereby it maintained the acquittal of 12 out of 19 accused who were put on trial but convicted the appellants for offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 153 (A), 295, 436 and 332 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra asserted, “In our view, therefore, 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 comprising of more than a thousand people. The view to the contrary taken by the High Court is completely unjustified. More so, while hearing an appeal against an order of acquittal.”

Advocate Pradhuman Gohil represented the Appellants while Senior Advocate Ruchi Kohli represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The prosecution case was to the effect that on February 28, 2002, while the informant was patrolling with other police personnel, information was received that a mob had surrounded a graveyard and a mosque situated in a village. When the police party arrived at the spot, the mob pelted stones causing damage to police vehicles as well as injury to police personnel.

In consequence, the police had to take recourse to release the tear gas shells and firing of gunshots, which resulted in a stampede-like situation. Investigation resulted in a charge sheet against 19 persons including the ones who were arrested on the spot. The Trial Court acquitted all the accused by giving them the benefit of the doubt.

The High Court maintained the acquittal of accused nos.8 to 19, who were neither named in the FIR nor arrested on the spot. However, in respect of accused nos. 1 to 5 and 7 (appellants), the High Court observed that since they were arrested on the spot and were also named in the FIR, their presence at the scene of the crime stood proved beyond reasonable doubt and since rioting and destruction of property has been proved, they being part of the unlawful assembly were convicted. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the rioting crowd was very large and the movement of residents of that area was not prohibited. The police intervened during night hours and resorted to firing to disperse the crowd, which resulted in a stampede-like situation. It was explained by the Bench that 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. In such type of cases, the courts must be circumspect and reluctant to rely upon the testimony of witnesses who make general statements without specific reference to the accused, or the role played by him.

“Thus, as a rule of caution and not a rule of law, where the evidence on record establishes the fact that a large number of persons were present, it may be safe to only those persons against whom overt act is alleged. At times, in such cases, as a rule of caution and not a rule of law, the courts have adopted a plurality test, that is, the conviction could be sustained only if it is supported by a certain number of witnesses who give a consistent account of the incident”, it said.

The Bench also observed, “...the Courts have generally held the accused vicariously liable, with the aid of Section 149 of the IPC, inter alia, (a) where he had proceeded to the scene of crime along with other members of the assembly carrying arms or instruments which could serve the object of the assembly; and (b) where he had participated in any manner in the events which serve the common object of the assembly.”

Coming to the factual aspects, the Bench noticed that the appellants were residents of the same village where riots broke out, therefore their presence at the spot was natural and by itself not incriminating. Their presence at the spot could be that of an innocent bystander who had a right to move freely in absence of prohibitory orders. Moreover, no evidence came on record to indicate that the appellants incited the mob, or they themselves acted in any manner indicative of them being a part of the unlawful assembly. “In our view, therefore, on basis of their mere presence at the scene of crime, an inference could not have been drawn that the appellants were a part of the unlawful assembly”, it stated.

Finding that the High Court erred in reversing the order of acquittal of the appellants, the Bench allowed the appeals and restored the order of the Trial Court. “If the appellants are on bail, they need not surrender. Their bail bonds, if any, are discharged”, it ordered.

Cause Title: Dhirubhai Bhailalbhai Chauhan & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Ors (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 381)

Appearance:

Appellants: Advocates Pradhuman Gohil, Taruna Singh Gohil, Alapati Sahithya Krishna, Hetvi K. Patel, Rushabh N. Kapadia, Taniya Bansal, AOR Vikash Singh

Respondent: Senior Advocate Ruchi Kohli, AOR Swati Ghildiyal, Advocates Devyani Bhatt, Srishti Mishra

Click here to read/download Judgment


Justice Pamidighantam Sri NarasimhaJustice Manoj Misra

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.