2002 Gujarat Riots: Special SIT Court Cites Inconsistent And Unreliable Evidence In Naroda Gam Case

The special SIT court in Ahmedabad acquitted all 67 accused in the 2002 Naroda Gam case after the prosecution failed to prove criminal conspiracy charges due to lack of reliable witnesses, as stated in the recently published 1728-page verdict.

The SIT, appointed by the Supreme Court, probed into the case that involved Maya Kodnani, Babu Bajrangi, Jaydeep Patel and others.

They were accused in one of the nine major 2002 riot cases that were being watched over by the SIT.

The court of Special Judge Shubhada Baxi relied on jurisprudence which included the Gujarat High Court's judgment on the appeals of Naroda Patiya accused.

While Kodnani was acquitted, the High Court upheld the conviction of 16 individuals out of the 32 who were convicted by the trial court. This verdict reversed the decision of the trial court in the Naroda Patiya case.

In a recent verdict on the 2002 Gujarat riot cases, the court relied on the Gujarat High Court's 2018 judgment. The verdict highlighted general principles that guide the appreciation of evidence in such cases.

According to the specially constituted court, the jurisprudence laid down, and the Indian Evidence Act mandates that an alleged crime committed by a mob requires consistent and corroborating evidence from at least three witnesses.

If only one or two witnesses allege complicity, their testimony cannot be trusted without additional supportive evidence, which was lacking in this case. Therefore, the court dismissed the allegations for lack of evidence.

The court noted that although eight star witnesses were presented by the prosecution, their evidence did not support one another but rather contradicted each other.

“In this regard also, the evidence is not consistent and reliable and, therefore, such evidence cannot be relied upon and it does not in any way prove the facts implicating the accused in the commission of the offences,” the order noted, reports The Indian Express.

According to the court's ruling, the prosecution was unable to prove that the accused were present at the time and place where the crime occurred.

Additionally, the evidence provided did not support this claim. While the court acknowledged that there was damage to property and that the properties were looted, burned, and vandalised, it found that the evidence was inconsistent with the names of the accused.

Furthermore, the court noted that no weapons used in the act of vandalism and arson were seized by the investigating officer. Thus, it was not proven that an unlawful assembly was formed with a common intention and a conspiracy was hatched. The court concluded that the evidence presented did not fulfill the criteria of criminal conspiracy

The court found that the evidence provided for criminal conspiracy was "doubtful" and did not support the allegation of conspiracy with common intention. The verdict notes that criminal conspiracy was not alleged in the initial investigation in 2002, but only in 2008 after the SIT took over the probe.

“Merely the presence of mob, inciting a mob, or gesturing at the mob does not comprise criminal conspiracy. Based on mere presence at the spot, it cannot be said to be a criminal conspiracy and it is not proven how criminal conspiracy was committed based on the evidence,” the verdict mentioned.

The court noted that Babu Bajrangi had presented medical records supporting his alibi, but the SIT's investigation officer did not investigate further or take statements from any doctors.

The court held that Bajrangi was only arraigned as an accused because of the sting operation, which the Gujarat HC had deemed an extrajudicial confession that cannot be held as evidence unless supported by other evidence.

The court also observed that part of the sting operation recording was deleted and the prosecution provided no explanation for it.

The court noted that the three main accused, Kodnani, Jaydeep Patel and Babu Bajrangi, were charged six years after the incident and the evidence regarding criminal conspiracy was inconsistent, leading to it being deemed unreliable.

The court concluded that the call detail records did not support the prosecution's allegations of criminal conspiracy against Kodnani, Jaydeep, Vallabh Patel, Ashok Patel, and Pradyuman Patel.

Furthermore, the prosecution failed to prove how Kodnani and Jaydeep allegedly hatched and masterminded the conspiracy, the court noted.