Una flogging case: Nine years on, it’s a long road to justice as well as closure for Sarvaiya family

The case, reported from Gir Somnath district’s Una area, dates back to July 11, 2016 when Vashram Sarvaiya and six of his family members were allegedly attacked by some self-styled cow vigilantes for allegedly skinning a dead cow on the outskirts of their village Mota Samdhiyala. Belonging to a Scheduled Caste community, the traditional occupation of Vashram and his family members has been the skinning of dead animals. After the attack, they were allegedly abducted, confined to a car and taken to Una. They were allegedly tied to a car with a rope and were paraded through the market of Una town while being publicly flogged. Vashram had lodged a police complaint at Una police station against six persons. At that time, the videos of public flogging of Vashram and his family members were widely shared on social media platforms leading to large-scale protests against the atrocities against the Dalits in Gujarat. After completion of investigation in the case, a chargesheet was filed before a Sessions Court in Una. Later, the case was transferred to a Sessions Court in Veraval.

A total of 40 accused — including two cops — are currently facing trial in the case. They are facing charges like attempt to murder, voluntarily causing hurt with dangerous weapons, criminal intimidation, criminal conspiracy, robbery, wrongful confinement, forgery of records of a public register, furnishing false information to a public servant, causing disappearance of offence, assault on a woman with intent to outrage her modesty etc. under the provisions of Indian Penal Code and the Atrocity Act. All the accused in the case are out on bail.

As the trial of the case was on in the Sessions Court of Veraval, the complainant’s lawyer Govind Parmar had on June 10, 2024 filed written submissions running into 126 pages to “effectively assist” the court in appreciating the voluminous records of the documentary and oral evidence. However, as per Vashram’s petition before HC, the trial court passed an order stating that the key arguments ought to be submitted in writing whereas, detailed arguments could be narrated orally. The complainant moved an application requesting the trial court to adjourn the proceedings to enable him to make oral submissions. However, on September 21, 2024, the trial court rejected the application while holding that the complainant can do written arguments, but oral arguments can be made through the Public Prosecutor.

‘Untenable and unsustainable’

Vashram moved a petition before HC in October 2024 demanding to quash the trial court’s order while stating that it is “contrary to the provisions and objects” of the Atrocity Act. The petition also stated that the order is “untenable and unsustainable” as the complainant, who is a victim under the provisions of the Atrocity Act, is entitled under Section 15-A(5) of the Act “to be heard at any proceeding under the Act”. Hearing the petition, on January 8, 2025, an HC bench had issued notices to the respondents in the case while observing that, “…prima facie, it seems that there is merit in the application.”

With that, the HC has also ordered the trial court not to go ahead with the proceedings. According to advocate Megha Jani, Vashram’s counsel, the petition stands pending before HC and its further hearing is scheduled on August 18.