The Gujarat High Court has confirmed a 2015 sessions court ruling that acquitted six men accused of killing three British nationals near Prantij during the 2002 state-wide riots that followed the Godhra train burning incident.
In its verdict, the court pointed out that no Test Identification Parade (TIP) had been conducted in the case. The dock identification of the accused, done after a gap of six years, was deemed unreliable as sole evidence for conviction. Furthermore, the investigation was initiated based on an anonymous fax sent to the British High Commission, rather than independent eyewitness testimony.
A division bench of Justice AY Kogje and Justice Samir J Dave, in its order dated March 6, analyzed witness testimonies, including that of the complainant (PW-68) and the Investigating Officer (IO). The court stated:
"This Court is of the view that the I.O. made an attempt to carry out the T.I.P. during the course of investigation by the first I.O. However, for the reasons mentioned in his deposition, the T.I.P. could not be proceeded. The Court does not find any reason to attribute any malafide to the role of the I.O. Therefore, the manner of the identification during the testimony of PW-68, and that too via video conferencing, may not be treated as an absolute identification to be a substantive evidence on which a conviction can be based."
Read also: Gujarat High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Journalist Mahesh Langa in Confidential Document Case
The court noted that the sessions court had already assessed the evidence, including the complainant’s testimony, the FIR, and the Investigating Officer’s report. The description of the accused given by witnesses only included height, clothing, and approximate age, with no specific details in the FIR.
"The Sessions Court has rightly concluded that such an identification (Dock) cannot be the sole ground to base conviction," the court observed.
The complainant identified the accused via video conferencing as part of the mob. However, the court referred to Supreme Court rulings that emphasize strict safeguards when considering dock identification as evidence under Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The court ruled:
"In the present case, there was no T.I.P. admittedly, and PW-68 is a stranger to the area and the people in the mob. The Dock identification is for the first time after a gap of 6 years. Therefore, the Court has no hesitation to conclude that the Dock identification of the accused in the manner described cannot be treated as a relevant fact established by prosecution to convict the accused."
Read also: Supreme Court Sets Legal Precedent on Acquittal of Innocent Bystanders in Group Clashes
The complainant’s cross-examination further revealed that he had admitted in his 2008 statement that he struggled to identify the accused due to the passage of time. However, he denied claims that he did not provide details about the attackers in 2002.
The court found inconsistencies between the complainant’s version and other witness testimonies regarding the size of the mob:
"This witness has deposed that the vehicle was intercepted by a mob of 15 to 20 people, whereas the mob consisted of a large number of people. An independent witness, PW-19, Pravin Patel, Exh-111, in his chief, has mentioned that the Jeep vehicle was followed by a mob of 150 to 200 persons. This version is consistent even in his cross."
Additionally, the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report did not support any evidence linking the accused to the crime scene. Though the lie detector test of the accused was not argued, the court noted that the FSL conclusions exonerated the accused from suspicion.
One of the key issues in the case was how the accused were named in the investigation. The court pointed out that the accusations were based on an anonymous fax sent to the British High Commission, rather than direct eyewitness accounts.
"The root lies in the anonymous fax letter addressed to the British High Commission, which named the respondents as accused persons. The Court refers to the evidence of PW-75, Exh.297, an officer of the British Consulate, who mentioned an anonymous fax listing 10 suspects. This information was forwarded to the Director General of Police and the Investigating Officer. Therefore, the investigation was initiated based on an anonymous fax message, not on any independent eyewitness evidence."
With this, the court dismissed the State's appeal, stating that it found no reason to interfere with the trial court’s acquittal order.
Case Background
The case dates back to February 28, 2002, when the complainant, Imran Mohamad Salim Dawood, along with his two uncles Saeed Safik Dawood and Sakil Abdul Hai Dawood, and another relative Mohamad @ Nallabhai Abdulbhai Aswar, all British nationals, were returning from a trip to Agra and Jaipur. They were traveling in a car with their driver Yusuf when they encountered a violent mob on the highway.
The mob, allegedly armed with sticks and dhariyas, intercepted their vehicle and launched an attack. The driver was killed on the spot, and the jeep was set on fire. The complainant and his relative, Mohamad Aswar, were injured, while his two uncles tried to escape into nearby fields but were chased by the mob. A police patrolling van later rescued the complainant and took him to the hospital, where Mohamad Aswar was declared dead.
Later, relatives of the deceased, along with the British Deputy High Commissioner and police personnel, visited the area. They allegedly found small bone fragments at a nearby factory, which were sent to a Forensic Lab in Hyderabad for identification.
The Supreme Court, in the 2003 case National Human Rights Commission v. State of Gujarat, directed the Gujarat government to form a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe several 2002 riots cases, including this one.
The SIT was formed in April 2008, and in December 2008, the complainant’s statement was recorded. By 2009, the sessions court framed charges against six accused under sections including:
- 302 (Murder)
- 323 (Voluntarily causing hurt)
- 153(A) (Promoting enmity between different groups)
- 143, 147, 148 (Unlawful assembly and rioting with deadly weapons)
However, in 2015, the sessions court acquitted all six accused, citing insufficient evidence.
With the Gujarat High Court now upholding the acquittal, the case has reached a legal conclusion unless further appealed.
Case title: IMRAN DAWOOD S/O. MOHAMMAD SALIM DAWOOD BRITISH NATIONAL v/s PATEL MITHABHAI PASHABHAI & others
