2002 Gujarat Riots: High Court Upholds Murder Acquittal Of Two, Cites State's Failure To Prove Where Body Was Recovered From
The Gujarat High Court has upheld the acquittal of two in a murder case connected to the 2002 post Godhra train burning communal riots, finding that the prosecution's case was riddled with hearsay evidence, material contradictions in eyewitness testimony, as well as the failure to establish where dead body was recovered from. Pointing out these infirmities, the Division Bench comprising...
The Gujarat High Court has upheld the acquittal of two in a murder case connected to the 2002 post Godhra train burning communal riots, finding that the prosecution's case was riddled with hearsay evidence, material contradictions in eyewitness testimony, as well as the failure to establish where dead body was recovered from.
Pointing out these infirmities, the Division Bench comprising Justice M.R. Mengdey and Justice Mool Chand Tyagi observed:
"The prosecution also examined P.W.5, Girishchandra Chhaganlal Ravat, the Investigating Officer, at Exh.23. He deposed that he conducted the investigation and, upon completion thereof, filed the chargesheet. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he was not aware from where the dead body was recovered. He further admitted that the inquest panchnama was drawn at the Civil Hospital and that the FIR was lodged after a delay of 11 to 12 days. He also admitted that there was no explanation on record for such delay. The panchnama of the place of incident was proved at Exh.16. A perusal thereof reveals that nothing incriminating was found or recorded at the scene. The inquest panchnama at Exh.17 indicates that it was drawn on 01.03.2002 at the Civil Hospital. In light of the aforesaid evidence, the prosecution has failed to establish from where the dead body was recovered. The panchnama of the place of incident is devoid of any incriminating material, and the inquest panchnama was drawn at the Civil Hospital. P.Ws.2 and 3 are hearsay witnesses and not eye-witnesses to the incident"
With respect to eyewitness testimonies the court said:
“… there are material contradictions between [the eyewitness's] examination-in-chief and cross examination. The very presence of this witness at the place of incident appears doubtful, and his testimony does not inspire confidence. His subsequent conduct is also unnatural, inasmuch as he neither reported the incident to the police immediately nor sought medical treatment for the injuries allegedly sustained by him.”
The Court was hearing a criminal appeal filed by the State of Gujarat challenging the acquittal of Gulabchand Johrilal Jayswal and another by the Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, in connection with the alleged killing of one Yasin during the communal riots of March 2002.
According to the prosecution, a mob had gathered near Idgah Masjid during the riots and the accused were alleged to have assaulted Yasin and set him ablaze. However, the Court noted that the FIR was lodged by the complainant who was admittedly not present at the scene and had filed the complaint based on what he had heard from others. The Bench observed that the “sum and substance of [the complainant's] deposition is that he is not an eye-witness to the incident and that the complaint is based on hearsay evidence.”
In addition to noting the contradictory testimony of the eyewitness, the Court also observed the serious delay in registration of FIR. There was an admitted delay of 11-12 days in lodging the FIR, and the prosecution had failed to provide any satisfactory explanation for such delay. Further, the Investigating Officer in his cross examination admitted that he was not aware from where the dead body was recovered.
Consequently, the Court held that there was no credible evidence connecting the accused persons to the alleged crime. In such a situation, the Appellate Court should exercise restraint in interfering with the order of a lower court.
The Court noted that “merely because two views are possible, the Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered by the Court below” and since the lower court's decision was not “perverse,” it did not warrant being set aside. Indeed, the Court held that a “double presumption” of innocence existed in favour of an accused who had been acquitted by a lower court, and declined to interfere with the trial court's order.
In the instance case, the court said that the State had failed to point out any cogent and incriminating evidence against the accused persons, which may connect the accused persons with the commission of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
Holding that the trial court had rightly appreciated the evidence, the High Court dismissed the State's appeal and upheld the acquittal of the accused.
Case Title: State of Gujarat v. Gulabchand Johrilal Jayswal & Anr.
Case No.: R/Criminal Appeal No. 814 of 2003
Appearance: Mr. Ankit Y. Bachani for Respondent No. 2