Mere Presence at Scene of Riot Not Enough to Prove Guilt – Innocent Bystander Cannot Be Penalised Without Specific Role or Intent": Supreme Court

In Absence of Prohibitory Orders, Villager's Presence at Riot Site is Natural 
Conviction Cannot Rest on Arrest Alone," SC Reverses Gujarat HC 
Verdict. Supreme Court Acquits Six Appellants Convicted for Rioting in Post-Godhra Incident, Emphasizes Safeguard Against Miscarriage of Justice in Mass Violence Cases. 
 
In a judgment delivered on 21st March 2025, the Supreme Court of India in 
Dhirubhai Bhailalbhai Chauhan & Anr. v. State of Gujarat (Criminal Appeal 
No. 816/2016) along with Kiritbhai Manibhai Patel & Ors. v. State of Gujarat 
(Criminal Appeal No. 817/2016), set aside the Gujarat High Court's conviction of six individuals for offences arising from a post-Godhra riot incident in 2002, reaffirming the vital principle that: 
 
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." 
 
Arrest at Riot Site Doesn’t Make One a Rioter — Burden is on Prosecution to Prove Active Participation or Common Object
 
The appellants had been acquitted by the Trial Court in Sessions Trial No. 119/2003, but the Gujarat High Court, by its judgment dated 05.05.2016, reversed the acquittal of six accused (accused nos. 1 to 5 and 7) and convicted them under Sections 143, 147, 153A, 295, 436, and 332 of the IPC. 
 
The Supreme Court, however, found that the High Court had erred in reversing the acquittal solely based on the fact that the appellants were arrested at the scene: 
 
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.
 
Factual Background: Mob Violence and Police Action 
 
According to the prosecution, on the night of 28.02.2002, a violent mob had surrounded a graveyard and mosque in village Vadod. When the police attempted to disperse the mob, they were attacked with stones. Police responded with tear gas and gunfire, causing a stampede. 
 
Seven persons were arrested on the spot, and 12 others were later implicated. The Trial Court acquitted all 19 accused, citing unreliable identification, absence of specific roles, and contradictions in prosecution evidence. 
 
The High Court upheld the acquittal of accused nos. 8 to 19 but reversed the acquittal of the six appellants based on their arrest at the scene and naming in the FIR. It inferred participation in the unlawful assembly, despite absence of overt acts or possession of weapons. 
 
Supreme Court’s Analysis: “Presence Alone Is Not Proof of Participation” 
 
Justice Manoj Misra, writing for the Bench along with Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, held: 
 
"In the instant case, to sustain their conviction, the prosecution ought to have led some reliable evidence to demonstrate that they were a part of the unlawful assembly and not just spectators." 
 
The Court laid down guiding principles for riot-related trials: 
 
Merely being at the scene, especially in a public place, does not establish guilt. 
 
No weapon or inflammatory substance was recovered from the appellants. 
 
There was no evidence of incitement or specific acts. 
 
Both PW-2 and PW-4, the only eye-witnesses, were found unreliable by the High Court itself. 
 
The prosecution failed to show who apprehended the accused and what they were doing. 
 
 
"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." 
 
 
 
"An innocent person may be mistaken for a miscreant, especially in a stampede created by police firing. Thus, arrest from the spot is not a guarantee of culpability." 
 
On Appeal Against Acquittal: “High Threshold Not Met” 
 
The Court reminded that in appeals against acquittals, the presumption of innocence gets reinforced: 
 
"More so, while hearing an appeal against an order of acquittal... the High Court’s interference should be cautious and grounded in compelling reasoning." 
 
 The Supreme Court concluded: 
 
"On basis of their mere presence at the scene of crime, an inference could not have been drawn that the appellants were a part of the unlawful assembly." 
 
 Accordingly, it allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court’s judgment, and restored the Trial Court’s acquittal. 
 
If on bail, the appellants were not required to surrender, and their bail bonds were discharged. 
 
Conclusion: Affirming Rights of the Innocent in Riot Trials 
 
This verdict is a reaffirmation of the constitutional promise that guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, and mere suspicion or proximity cannot be a substitute for proof. 
 
It also reasserts the judiciary’s role in protecting innocent bystanders from wrongful conviction in mob violence or communal disturbance cases, where the line between guilt and presence is often blurred. 
 
Date of Decision: 21 March 2025