Supreme Court Cautions Against Convicting Innocent Bystanders In Group Clashes, Acquits 6 In 2002 Gujarat Riots Case

The Supreme Court recently observed that in cases of group clashes where a large number of persons are involved, Courts must be cautious to ensure that no innocent bystander is convicted and deprived of their 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. The mere presence of persons, who out of curiosity gathered to witness the incidents, should not be a ground to convict them when there is no overt act alleged against them.

The Supreme Court made these remarks while acquitting six individuals who were convicted for rioting and unlawful assembly in a case related to violence during the 2002 Gujarat riots.

The accused persons were acquitted by the trial court for offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 153 (A), 295, 436 and 332 of the Indian Penal Code. However, their acquittal was reversed by the Gujarat High Court noting that they were present during the crime scene, showing their involvement in the unlawful assembly where a large mob surrounded a graveyard and mosque in Vadod village, Gujarat and pelted stones, damaged police vehicles, and injured police personnel on February 28, 2002.

Challenging their conviction, the Appellants-accused persons appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that their presence at the crime scene was natural, as they were residents of the village. They contended that mere presence does not prove their involvement in the unlawful assembly.

Further, they argued that no overt act on their part was proved by the prosecution to prove their participation in the unlawful assembly, as the eyewitness's testimonies were also discarded by the trial court and the High Court.

The State opposed the Appellants' arguments stating that in cases of rioting, it is difficult to particularize individual roles. Therefore, proving the presence of the accused at the scene is sufficient to convict them as part of the unlawful assembly.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra emphasized that mere presence does not automatically make someone a member of an unlawful assembly. There must be additional evidence to show their active participation or common object.

Since, the appellants were residents of the village, and their presence at the scene was natural, especially since no curfew was imposed at the time. The Court noted that it would be unjustified to book the Appellants just because they were present as bystanders.

“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. In these circumstances, their presence at the spot could be that of an innocent bystander who had a right to move freely in absence of prohibitory orders.”, the court observed.

Moreover, the judgment authored by Justice Misra observed that no overt act on the Appellant's part was proved to establish their involvement/participation in the unlawful assembly, as no weapons or inflammable substances were recovered from the appellant's possession.

“Besides that, in absence of any inculpatory role ascribed to the appellants, their arrest on the spot is not conclusive that they were a part of the unlawful assembly, particularly when neither instrument of destruction nor any inflammatory material was seized from them. Besides that, the police resorted to firing causing people to run helter skelter. In that melee, even an innocent person may be mistaken for a miscreant. Thus, appellants' arrest from the spot is not a guarantee of their culpability. 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.”, the court observed.

General Statements By Witnesses Without Specific Attribution Insufficient To Convict Individuals In Cases Involving Large Crowds

The Court held that general statements by witnesses, without specific attribution of roles, are insufficient to convict individuals in cases involving large crowds, and the police should be cautious to book such individuals who were just bystanders without having any participation in the unlawful assembly.

“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. This is so, because very often, particularly when the scene of crime is a public place, out of curiosity, persons step out of their home to witness as to what is happening around. Such persons are no more than bystander though, to a witness, they may appear to be a part of the unlawful assembly. 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 convict 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.”, the Court observed.

In terms of the aforesaid, the Court allowed the appeal giving benefit of doubt to the Appellants.

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

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 340

Click here to read/download the judgment