India News | Godhra Aftermath: SC Says Ensure No Bystander Convicted, Acquits 6
Get latest articles and stories on India at LatestLY. The Supreme Court on Friday acquitted six persons in a post-Godhra riots case from Gujarat and said in matters of group clashes, it was courts' onerous duty to ensure no bystander was convicted and deprived of liberty.
New Delhi, Mar 21 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Friday acquitted six persons in a post-Godhra riots case from Gujarat and said in matters of group clashes, it was courts' onerous duty to ensure no bystander was convicted and deprived of liberty.
A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Manoj Misra said in cases of riots in which a large number of persons were involved, courts must be "circumspect and reluctant" to rely on the testimony of witnesses who made general statements without specific reference to the accused or their roles.
The top court, therefore, set aside a Gujarat High Court order which overturned the trial court decision and convicted six persons while acquitting 12 others in the case of riot in village Vadod in the state.
The prosecution alleged a riot took place on February 28, 2002, in the village, resulting in loss of public property and damage to police vehicles.
Also Read | Howrah Fire: Massive Blaze Erupts in Factory in Dhulgarh, 15 Fire Engines Deployed (Watch Videos).
"In cases of group clashes where a large number of persons are involved, a onerous duty is cast upon the courts to ensure that no innocent bystander is convicted and deprived of his liberty," the bench said.
The top court said very often, particularly when the scene of crime was a public place, out of curiosity, persons stepped out of homes to witness the incident.
"Such persons are no more than bystanders 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," the bench added.
The bench said at times, in such cases, as a rule of caution and not rule of the law, the courts have adopted a plurality test, that is, the conviction could be sustained only if supported by a certain number of witnesses who gave a consistent account of the incident.
The appellants in the present case were residents of the same village where riots broke out, therefore, their presence at the spot is natural and by itself not incriminating, the court said.
"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 bench added.
The court observed to sustain the conviction, the prosecution ought to have led some reliable evidence to demonstrate the accused were a part of an unlawful assembly and not merely spectators.
"Here no evidence has come 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. The only evidence in that regard came from PW-2 and PW-4 (prosecution witnesses), but that has been discarded by the high court for cogent reasons which need not be repeated here," the verdict said.
The bench held on the basis of the mere presence at the scene of crime, an inference could not be drawn that the appellants were a part of the unlawful assembly.
The court, however, did not rule out a situation where a crowd of assailants, who were members of an unlawful assembly, committed the murder in pursuance of the common object.
"In such a case, any person who is a member of that unlawful assembly is equally liable even though no specific overt act of assault is attributed to him," it said.
Even otherwise, the bench said, where the assailants were in a large number it was not possible for witnesses to accurately describe the role of each individual.
"Besides, if a large crowd of persons armed with weapons assault the intended victims, it may not be necessary that all of them must take part in the actual assault," the verdict added.
Justice Misra, who authored the judgment on behalf of the bench, said it was essential for the court to determine whether the accused put on trial was a part of the unlawful assembly or just a bystander.
Noting such a determination was "inferential" based on the proven facts of the case, the judge said, "Though it is not feasible to exhaustively lay down the list of circumstances from which an inference regarding the accused being part of the unlawful assembly be drawn, 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."
The judgment held mere presence at the scene of crime was not sufficient to prove the appellants comprised the unlawful assembly of over a thousand people.
(The above story is verified and authored by Press Trust of India (PTI) staff. PTI, India’s premier news agency, employs more than 400 journalists and 500 stringers to cover almost every district and small town in India.. The views appearing in the above post do not reflect the opinions of LatestLY)