Police Witness Testimony Found Unreliable, Contradictory; Gujarat HC Acquits 3 in Arson Case, Citing Police Bias and 'Testilying' Culture

Gujarat High Court Acquits Three in 2006 Arson Case, Cites Unreliable Police Testimony and Potential Bias

AHMEDABAD: The Gujarat High Court has overturned the conviction of three men sentenced for setting a police motorcycle on fire during a communal clash in 2006, ruling that the prosecution's case, built almost entirely on the testimony of police witnesses, was riddled with contradictions and failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

In a sharply critical judgment, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Gita Gopi acquitted Patel Kanubhai Tribhuvandas and two others, highlighting inconsistencies in witness accounts, the lack of an identification parade, and the potential for police bias in a case stemming from factional rivalry. The court observed that the evidence suggested a "partisan" approach by the police, who may have acted with a "bias motive."

Background of the Case

The case dates back to April 7, 2006, when a large mob from the Patel community gathered in Khoraj village, Gandhinagar, following an earlier incident where a community leader was allegedly kidnapped by members of the Rabari community. The police, arriving at the scene to control the situation, alleged that the mob became violent, pelted stones, and that three individuals—the appellants—set a police motorcycle on fire.

The Sessions Court in Gandhinagar, while acquitting 10 other accused, convicted the three appellants under Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for mischief by fire and sentenced them to three years of rigorous imprisonment. The present appeals challenged this conviction.

Key Arguments in the High Court

The Appellants' Defence:

The defence counsel, led by Mr. B.M. Mangukiya, launched a multi-pronged attack on the prosecution's evidence. They argued:

• Contradictory Witnesses: There were significant contradictions among the police witnesses regarding who set the motorcycle on fire. While the complainant (P.W.1) and another constable (P.W.10) specifically named the three appellants, other police witnesses (P.W.6, P.W.7, P.W.8) testified that the "crowd" was responsible, without identifying any individuals.
• Lack of Identification: In a mob of 400-500 people at night, identifying specific culprits was highly improbable, yet no Test Identification Parade was ever conducted.
• Suppression of Facts: The prosecution allegedly suppressed the fact that one of the accused had filed a complaint on the same day for being assaulted by members of the rival community, which was the likely trigger for the gathering.
• Unreliable Evidence: No independent witnesses were examined, and no inflammable substances like petrol or kerosene were recovered from the scene to corroborate the arson charge.

The State's Position:

The Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Rohankumar Raval, defended the conviction, asserting that the three appellants were arrested on the spot. He contended that the testimony of the police witnesses, supported by the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report which confirmed the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons, was sufficient to prove their guilt.

Court's Scrutiny and Landmark Observations

Justice Gita Gopi undertook a meticulous examination of the evidence, ultimately finding it insufficient and unreliable. The court's reasoning was anchored in several key findings:

• Partisan and Unreliable Testimony: The court noted that "the police here, as complainant has acted in a partisan way towards the Patel community." Most police witnesses did not support the complainant's specific allegation against the three appellants, creating serious doubt.
• Credibility of Eyewitnesses: The testimony of P.W.10, the constable who brought the motorcycle to the scene, was found particularly weak. He could not identify the accused in court and admitted that another officer had given him their names. The court stated, "The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.10 are not reliable."
• On Police 'Testilying': In a significant observation on police conduct, the court remarked on the culture of fabricating evidence to secure convictions. The judgment reads:

  "Police culture embraces testimonial lying because the ends justify the means. Lying is acceptable to the police when it helps to ensure conviction of people, police officer believes are guilty... In this Police culture of testilying, fairness, importance of truth and procedural protection becomes crucial for the system of justice. Police is not above the law."

• Failure to Prove Public Property: The court also pointed out a fundamental lapse by the prosecution: the failure to produce any documentary evidence, such as a registration book or movement register, to prove that the burnt motorcycle was indeed government property.

Final Verdict

Concluding that the police witnesses were interested parties whose testimonies could not be relied upon without corroboration, the High Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

"The conclusion by the Trial Court Judge of convicting the present appellants would thus, become erroneous, and no justification can be attributed to the conclusion reached," the court stated.

Granting the appellants the benefit of the doubt, the court allowed the appeals, setting aside the judgment of the Sessions Court. All three appellants were acquitted of all charges.