Supreme Court Restores Trial Court Acquittal, Holds Mere Presence In Large Riot Not Enough For Conviction

A two-judge Bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra heard appeals against a Gujarat High Court order that partly reversed a trial court acquittal and convicted several accused for offences arising from a 2002 village riot; the appeals challenged whether mere presence at the scene and arrest on the spot could sustain convictions as members of an unlawful assembly.

The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court’s conviction of the appellants and restored the Trial Court’s acquittal. The Bench held that, in the facts of this case, presence at the scene of a large nocturnal disturbance and arrest therefrom, without evidence of any overt act, weapons or participation towards the common object, was insufficient to convict under Section 149 IPC. The Court emphasised judicial caution in mass-riot cases and underscored that conviction must rest on proof that the accused was “part of the unlawful assembly” rather than a bystander. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “There may, however, be a situation where a crowd of assailants, who are members of an unlawful assembly, proceeds to commit murder in pursuance of the common object of that assembly. 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. Otherwise also, where the assailants are large in number it may not be possible for witnesses to describe accurately the part played by each one of them. 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. Therefore, in a situation like this, what is important for the Court is to determine whether the accused put on trial was a part of the unlawful assembly or just a bystander. Such determination is inferential, based on the proven facts of the case. 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, 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.” The Court further noted that “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.”

Background The criminal proceedings arose from an FIR lodged by a police constable recording that on 28 February 2002 a large mob had surrounded a graveyard and mosque at village Vadod; police alleged stone-pelting, damage to vehicles and injuries to personnel, and resorted to tear gas and firing to disperse a crowd described as numbering over a thousand. Seven persons were apprehended on the spot and ultimately a charge-sheet was filed against 19 accused in Sessions Trial No.119/2003. The Additional Sessions Judge acquitted all 19 accused on 11 July 2005, finding police testimony stereotyped and identification unreliable; the Trial Court noted absence of recovery of instruments or evidence attributing specific overt acts to the accused.

On appeal, the Gujarat High Court maintained acquittal of accused nos.8–19 but reversed the acquittal of accused nos.1–5 and 7—who were named in the FIR and arrested on the spot—convicting them for offences including rioting and mischief under Sections 143, 147, 153A, 295, 436 and 332 IPC. The High Court relied on the fact of on-the-spot arrest and the FIR naming the accused as proof of presence and participation, and observed that, where identification evidence was thin, presence and arrest could be determinative. As the Supreme Court recorded, the High Court itself conceded contradictions in witness testimony and that “in the mob of 1000 to 1500 persons, he could not have identified original accused Nos.8 to 19.”

The State contended that in mass-violence cases particulars of individual conduct were often unavailable and that proven presence in the mob could attract vicarious liability; the appellants argued that mere presence in their own village at night did not establish membership of an unlawful assembly and that the only incriminating witnesses had been discredited.

The Supreme Court found that no evidence established that the appellants carried weapons or instruments, incited the mob, or performed any overt act serving the common object. Applying established precedents and the rule of caution in mass-riot prosecutions, the Court held the High Court erred in reversing an acquittal and restored the Trial Court order. The appeals were allowed; the impugned High Court judgment was set aside; if the appellants were on bail they need not surrender and their bail bonds, if any, were discharged; pending applications stood disposed of.

Case No.: Crl. A. Nos.816/2016 & 817/2016 (2025 INSC 381) Case Title: Dhirubhai Bhailalbhai Chauhan & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.; Kiritbhai Manibhai Patel & Ors. v. The State of Gujarat Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Alapati Sahithya Krishna, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Advocate (for the State)