DHIRUBHAI BHAILALBHAI CHAUHAN & ANR. versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

Citation: [2025] 3 S.C.R. 904 · Decided: 21-03-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 3 S.C.R. 904 : 2025 INSC 381
Dhirubhai Bhailalbhai Chauhan & Anr. 
v. 
State of Gujarat & Ors.
(Criminal Appeal No. 816 of 2016)
21 March 2025
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment of 
acquittal passed by the Trial Court qua the appellants; whether in 
the facts of the case, mere presence of the appellants at the scene 
of crime, without anything further, was sufficient to hold them as 
members of the unlawful assembly.
Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.143, 147, 153A, 295, 436, 332 – Large 
rioting crowd comprising of over a thousand people – Six 
accused-appellants arrested from the crime scene (originally 7 
persons were arrested, one died during the trial) – High Court 
reversed their acquittal holding them to be part of the unlawful 
assembly – Correctness:
Held: High Court erred in reversing the order of acquittal of the 
appellants – In cases of group clashes where a large number of 
persons are involved, an onerous duty is cast upon the courts to 
ensure that no innocent bystander is convicted and deprived of 
his liberty – In such type of cases, the courts must be circumspect 
and reluctant to rely upon the testimony of witnesses making 
general statements without specific reference to the accused, or 
the role played by him – In the instant case, the appellants were 
residents of the same village where riots broke out, therefore their 
presence at the spot is natural and by itself not incriminating – Their 
arrest from the spot is not a guarantee of their culpability – No 
evidence that at the time of arrest they were carrying instruments 
of destruction or any inflammable substance, etc, having potential 
to cause damage to property or person – Except the statement of 
PW-2 and PW4, which was rightly discarded by the High Court, 
no specific evidence that the appellants indulged in any act of 
* Author
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 
905
Dhirubhai Bhailalbhai Chauhan & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
incitement, mischief or violence – Mere presence of the appellants 
at the spot, or their arrest therefrom, was not sufficient to prove 
that they were a part of the unlawful assembly comprising of more 
than a thousand people – Impugned order set aside, order of the 
Trial Court restored. [Paras 10, 14, 16-18]
Criminal Law – Riots/group clashes involving large number of 
persons – Duty of Courts as regards bystanders – Bystanders 
not to be convicted as a part of the unlawful assembly relying 
upon the testimony of witnesses making general statements:
Held: In cases of group clashes where a large number of persons 
are involved, an onerous duty is cast upon the courts to ensure 
that no innocent bystander is convicted – In such type of cases, 
the courts must be circumspect and reluctant to rely upon the 
testimony of witnesses making general statements without specific 
reference to the accused, or the role played by him – Where the 
assailants are large in number it may not be possible for witnesses 
to describe accurately the part played by each one of them – It 
is not feasible to exhaustively lay down the list of circumstances 
from which an inference regarding the accused being part of the 
unlawful assembly be drawn – Courts have generally held the 
accused vicariously liable, with the aid of s.149 of the IPC, inter 
alia, (a) where he had proceeded to the scene of crime along 
with other members of the assembly carrying arms or instruments 
which could serve the object of the assembly; and (b) where he 
had participated in any manner in the events which serve the 
common object of the assembly – Very often when the scene 
of crime is a public place, out of curiosity, persons step out of 
their home to witness as to what is happening around – Such 
persons are no more than bystander though, to a witness, they 
may appear to be a part of the unlawful assembly – Thus, as a 
rule of caution and not a rule of law, where the evidence on record 
establishes the fact that a large number of persons were present, 
it may be safe to convict only those persons against whom overt 
act is alleged – At times, in such cases, as a rule of caution and 
not a rule of law, the courts have adopted a plurality test, that 
is, the conviction could be sustained only if it is supported by a 
certain number of witnesses who give a consistent account of 
the incident – Besides, if a large crowd of persons armed with 
weapons assault the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.