Amreli court acquits 9 Dalits accused of ‘killing’ police constable during an anti-Una flogging protest rally in 2016

The judgment was pronounced Monday by the court of 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge of Amreli, Dharmendra Shrivastav. The case pertains to a rally carried out by the Dalits in Amreli on July 19, 2016 against the public flogging of seven members of family on July 11, the same year, in Gir-Somnath district’s Una by self-styled cow vigilantes for skinning the carcass of a cow.

The said rally was part of a series of protests organised by Dalits across Gujarat to protest the Una flogging incident. The court acquitted Ramesh Babariya, Ramesh Vijuda, Naran Vanjara, Shailesh Vala, Bhanu Vanjara, Manjula Vanjara, Kanti Vala, Navchetan Parmar and Ripal Chavda in the case. Notably, the rally was organised after Navchetan Parmar had taken permission of the authorities.

Head constable Pankaj Amreliya, who died during the protest rally, was at that time attached with Local Crime Branch.

Amreli city police had registered the case on the basis of a complaint lodged by the then in-charge Police Inspector of Amreli City Police Station H M Ramavat.

As per the prosecution’s case, the rally was carried out in Amreli town between 11 am and 2 pm to protest the Una public flogging incident and other alleged atrocities committed against the Dalit community in the state.

The prosecution stated that the protesters allegedly changed the rally route and attacked public properties. To control the situation, the police resorted to lathi charge and firing of tear gas shells, followed by stone pelting during which some Dalit protesters allegedly hit Amreliya with stones, resulting in his death. Some other policemen had also sustained injuries during the incident.

During the proceedings, the sessions court acquitted all the accused on “benefit of doubt” while highlighting some glaring discrepancies in the prosecution’s evidence.

The court observed that collectively looking at the testimonies of all the police witnesses in the case, there are some important contradictions about the place and time of the alleged incident.

“If we keep the entire evidence of police witnesses in sight, they give facts of being present at the time of incident at the spot, (however) contradictory facts are coming out (in) their own testimonies. So, if the incident as told by the prosecution has indeed happened, it has not been able to prove it beyond reasonable doubt,” the court observed in its judgment.

The prosecution had also accused Parmar, one of the accused, of instigating the mob. However, the court recorded in the judgment that records did appear before it in which Parmar was seen making an appeal to maintain peace and not to resort to violence.

“…It does not come out from the record that the accused (Parmar)…made provocative speech because of which the mob went uncontrolled and did vandalism…on the contrary, looking at records, it appears that he is making an appeal for peace,” the court observed.

The court also took note of the fact that Parmar had informed the district police head that some “anti-social” and “political” elements had sneaked in the rally.

In the FIR, the police had named 16 persons as accused from the mob of over 700 persons. However, later records appeared proving that some of them were not present at the scene of the incident, but outside Amreli. So, eventually, the police did not file a chargesheet against them. Total 10 accused were chargesheeted and one of them died during the trial.

Raising a doubt over the police investigation, the court also noted that no stones, with blood stains or without it, were recovered from the spot.

“It creates an important suspicion that if the deceased (head constable) died of injuries sustained by stone pelting, why didn’t the investigating officer recover the stones with blood stains,” the court observed.

As per the prosecution, the head constable had died as he was allegedly hit by stones by some of the accused. However, the court took notice of the medical evidence submitted by two doctors who had stated that “no injury was found anywhere on the body of the deceased that suggest that he died of injuries sustained in stone pelting or by someone hitting him on face with stone”.

The accused were represented by advocates Farooq Musani, Udayan Trivedi and Nitin Bhatt. According to Musani, it was their defence that Amreliya did not die of stone injury. “When they (police) came on a Bolero, Amreliya was standing on a step (of the vehicle) and he tried to alight from the moving vehicle. He fell down and his head crashed with the (road) divider. And one of the eye witnesses too narrated this incident before the court.”

Trivedi said, “The rally, from beginning till end, was admittedly videographed by police. However, the (alleged) incident of Amreliya’s murder was not recorded anywhere in the videography.”

The court in its order stated: “If all the evidence that have come on record are thoroughly evaluated, then it becomes clear that there is primafacie contradictions between facts mentioned in the complainant’s complaint, complainant’s evidence on oath and other witnesses’ evidence. Therefore, it is concluded that the prosecution has failed in bringing on record chained evidence which can support the facts of complainant’s complaint.”