The Gujarat High Court has refused to disturb acquittals in two separate cases of violence linked to the 2002 riots and involving allegations of victims being “thrown alive into the fire” and chased down by mobs, dismissing the appeals filed by the State in 2003 and by an individual petitioner in 2007.
In a judgment dated April 18, 2026 (which was made available on Thursday), a bench comprising Justice Nirzar Desai and Justice DN Ray of the Gujarat HC dismissed the appeal filed by the State challenging a 2003 order passed by the additional sessions judge of Vadodara acquitting five individuals accused of “throwing alive into the fire” a person named Samsuddin alias Kasam Khan in the Khodiyar Nagar area of Vadodara on February 28, 2002.
The FIR, based on the complaint of Samsuddin’s neighbhour, stemmed from the “widespread communal disturbances across the state” in the aftermath of the incident of burning of the Sabarmati Express in Godhra on February 27, 2002, the judgment notes.
The prosecution had alleged that the five accused, along with approximately 200 other individuals, had formed an unlawful assembly “with the common objective of committing the murder of the deceased… and to set ablaze Muslim residential colonies and shops”, the judgment notes.
According to the case, around 11 pm on February 28, a mob forcibly entered Samsuddin’s house and set it on fire. It was further alleged that Samsuddin was apprehended by the mob, assaulted, and ultimately thrown alive into the fire, resulting in his death.
The State argued that the “impugned judgment and order of acquittal… is contrary to the law and the evidence on record and, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside.” It contended that the trial court had “committed a grave error in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt”. The state also argued that the trial court had placed “undue emphasis” on the fact that the investigating officer “did not recover bones of the deceased from the place of the incident the next day… in fact, [the bones were] recovered after a period of seven days…” The State had urged the Court to consider that considering the nature of the incident, “involving extensive burning of shops and household articles, it was quite natural that the remains of the deceased may not have been immediately traceable at the spot the following day”.
Considering that the evidentiary record did not support the State’s argument against the acquittal of the accused, the HC noted the deposition of the forensic doctor that “it cannot be ascertained from the said bones whether they belonged to a male or a female”, and that “the bones examined by him cannot be conclusively linked to the deceased”.
Story continues below this ad
The Court further observed that the complainant had expressed “complete ignorance regarding the identity of the rioters” as the incident had occurred during the night “in darkness and, therefore, he was not in a position to identify any of the persons”. The State had contended that the complainant had “specifically named the accused persons and had also identified them in Court.” The prosecution also submitted that medical opinion “is merely advisory in nature and cannot override the direct and cogent testimony of the eyewitness.”
Stating that the HC, in the role of an the appellate court, cannot substitute its own view to reverse the acquittal into conviction, “unless the findings are perverse”, the bench held that the State had not been able to point out how the findings of the trial court were “contrary to material on record, palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable”.
Concluding that no case is made out to interfere with the 2003 judgment and order of acquittal, the HC dismissed the appeal.
Panchmahal case
Holding that no interference was warranted with the trial court’s findings, the High Court dismissed criminal revision applications challenging the acquittal of accused in a 2002 riot case from Panchmahal, in which two persons were killed in the village of Rameshara.
Story continues below this ad
In a judgment dated April 29, Justice HD Suthar of the Gujarat HC dismissed the appeal filed by Inayat Ali Makrani, who identified himself as the nephew of the deceased persons, on the grounds that the finding of the trial court had no “patent defect or error of jurisdiction of law”.
The case relates to post-Godhra violence, when a large mob allegedly attacked a village on March 2, 2002, set fire to houses and shops, and killed two persons—Yaar Mohammed Haji Meharban Ali Makrani and his wife Hamidabibi—who were attempting to flee. The FIR was registered at Halol Police Station and charges were filed under multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including dacoity, murder, mischief by fire and criminal conspiracy.
The High Court endorsed the trial court’s reasoning, noting that there were “material contradictions in the statements of the eyewitnesses.” The judgment further recorded that “although the prosecution alleged the involvement of ten accused persons, only three weapons were recovered” and “none of the accused were apprehended at the scene of the incident.”
The Court also found that the witnesses failed to identify the recovered weapons, and even the ‘muddamal’ was not properly identified. The prosecution, it noted, had been unable to establish that the accused were involved in the offence of dacoity or loot, nor could it prove that they had formed an unlawful assembly or had pre-planned the alleged incident.
