Supreme Court Acquits Six Persons in Post-Godhra Riots Case: A Landmark Judgment on Unlawful Assembly and Wrongful Conviction

Introduction

In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India on March 21, 2025, acquitted six individuals who were previously convicted in a post-Godhra riots case. The Court ruled that mere presence at the crime scene is insufficient to establish guilt, particularly in cases of large-scale rioting where innocent bystanders may be mistaken for perpetrators. This ruling reaffirms the principle that criminal liability must be established beyond a reasonable doubt through clear and specific evidence.

Case Background

The case dates back to February 2002, when communal riots erupted in Gujarat following the Godhra train burning incident. According to the prosecution, a mob of over 1,000 people gathered near a mosque and a graveyard in Vadod village. When police arrived and ordered the crowd to disperse, they were allegedly attacked with stones, resulting in injuries to police personnel and damage to vehicles. In response, the police fired tear gas and gunshots, triggering chaos and a stampede-like situation, during which seven individuals were arrested on the spot.

After an investigation, 19 individuals were charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including:

• Section 143 (Unlawful Assembly)
• Section 147 (Rioting)
• Section 153(A) (Promoting Enmity Between Groups)
• Section 295 (Defiling a Place of Worship)
• Section 436 (Mischief by Fire or Explosives)
• Section 332 (Voluntarily Causing Hurt to Deter a Public Servant from Duty)

Trial Court’s Acquittal and Gujarat High Court’s Reversal

In July 2005, a trial court acquitted all the accused, citing a lack of specific evidence. The court noted that police witnesses gave generic statements without clearly identifying the accused or their specific roles in the violence. Furthermore, the prosecution’s key witness provided contradictory testimonies regarding the identification of the accused.

However, in May 2016, the Gujarat High Court partly reversed the trial court’s ruling. While 12 accused individuals remained acquitted, six others were convicted on the grounds that they were arrested at the crime scene, which, according to the High Court, established their presence beyond doubt. The High Court held that their mere presence at the scene implied participation in the riot, leading to their conviction.

Supreme Court’s Verdict: Upholding the Presumption of Innocence

The convicted individuals challenged the Gujarat High Court’s ruling in the Supreme Court of India, which ultimately ruled in their favor. A Bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra carefully examined the evidence and legal principles governing unlawful assembly.

Key Observations by the Supreme Court

1. Mere Presence at the Crime Scene is Not Enough
   The Court emphasized that merely being present at the scene of violence does not establish a person’s participation in unlawful assembly or rioting. In cases involving large mobs, innocent bystanders may be wrongly accused due to circumstantial evidence.
2. Need for Specific and Incriminating Evidence
   The Court pointed out that the prosecution failed to provide any specific evidence linking the accused to the violent acts. Testimonies from prosecution witnesses (PW-2 and PW-4) were not reliable, as they contained inconsistencies and lacked clear identification of the accused.
3. No Recovery of Weapons or Riot-Related Material
   The Supreme Court noted that no weapons, inflammable substances, or other riot-related materials were recovered from the accused at the time of their arrest. Without such evidence, there was no concrete proof that they participated in violent activities.
4. Police Action and the Risk of Mistaken Identity
   The Bench observed that police action, including gunfire and tear gas shelling, triggered chaos and panic. In such a situation, it was highly probable that innocent bystanders could have been mistaken for rioters and arrested.
5. High Court’s Flawed Reasoning
   The Supreme Court criticized the Gujarat High Court’s reliance on the accused’s presence at the crime scene as the sole basis for conviction. The Court clarified that criminal liability requires clear evidence of active participation, not just presence in a chaotic situation.

Final Ruling

Based on these observations, the Supreme Court overturned the Gujarat High Court’s judgment and restored the trial court’s acquittal of the six accused individuals. The Court reiterated the fundamental principle that “justice must be blind to public sentiment and must be guided by facts and law alone.”

Significance of the Judgment

This ruling has far-reaching implications for criminal jurisprudence, particularly in cases involving unlawful assembly and rioting. Some key takeaways include:

• Strengthening the Right to Fair Trial
  The judgment reinforces the constitutional right of individuals to a fair trial and ensures that courts do not convict individuals based on mere suspicion or circumstantial evidence.
• Preventing Miscarriages of Justice
  By setting a high standard for proving guilt, the ruling prevents innocent people from being wrongly convicted in politically and communally sensitive cases.
• Guidance for Future Riot Cases
  Courts handling mass violence and riot cases will now have clearer guidelines on evaluating evidence and ensuring that innocent individuals are not wrongly implicated.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit six individuals in the post-Godhra riots case is a landmark ruling that upholds the principles of justice, fairness, and due process. The judgment serves as a cautionary reminder for law enforcement and judiciary bodies to exercise extreme care in identifying actual perpetrators, particularly in cases involving large mobs and communal violence.

By reaffirming the presumption of innocence and the need for specific evidence, the Supreme Court has strengthened India’s criminal justice system and reinforced public confidence in the judiciary. This ruling sets a precedent that will shape how similar cases are handled in the future, ensuring that justice is served based on facts, not assumptions.

https://wp.me/peEAVD-4H3