Gujarat HC upholds acquittals in killing of British nationals during 2002 riots
A bench of Justices AY Kogje and Samir J Dave ruled that the prosecution failed to establish a legally sound case against the accused charged with the murders
The Gujarat high court has upheld the acquittal of six men charged with killing three British nationals and their Indian driver during the 2002 Gujarat riots, affirming a sessions court’s 2015 verdict that said the evidence presented in the case was insufficient for conviction.
A bench of Justices AY Kogje and Samir J Dave ruled that the prosecution failed to establish a legally sound case against the accused charged with killing Saeed Safik Dawood, Sakil Abdul Hai Dawood, Mohammad Aswar, and Yusuf Suleman Peragar in a mob attack on their vehicle on February 28, 2002.
Mithabhai Patel, a school teacher, Rameshbhai Patel, Kalabhai Patel, Chandubhai Patel, Manojbhai Patel, and Rakeshbhai Patel, who were acquitted, faced charges including murder, attempted murder, rioting, arson, and destruction of evidence.
The vehicle carrying the British nationals was set ablaze. Two of the passengers were charred to death. The prosecution said the mob burnt Peragar inside the car, and Aswar died of head injuries. Two of the three British nationals were declared dead after their bone fragments were found in a burnt factory. A survivor of the attack, who sustained injuries, filed a complaint in the case.
The high court cited a lack of a proper test identification parade. It added that the survivor identified the accused in court, but his testimony eight years after the incident was uncertain. The survivor could only say the accused “somewhat” resembled the attackers when shown in court.
{{/usCountry}}The high court cited a lack of a proper test identification parade. It added that the survivor identified the accused in court, but his testimony eight years after the incident was uncertain. The survivor could only say the accused “somewhat” resembled the attackers when shown in court.
{{/usCountry}}The other key issues included Mithabhai Patel’s disputed school attendance records, questions about Rameshbhai Patel’s motorcycle allegedly used in the crime, and the absence of recovered weapons or stolen items. Forensic evidence confirmed the deaths, but it did not directly implicate any of the accused.
{{/usCountry}}The other key issues included Mithabhai Patel’s disputed school attendance records, questions about Rameshbhai Patel’s motorcycle allegedly used in the crime, and the absence of recovered weapons or stolen items. Forensic evidence confirmed the deaths, but it did not directly implicate any of the accused.
{{/usCountry}}The high court noted the case originated from an anonymous tip rather than solid evidence. It emphasised that appeals against acquittal require overwhelming proof to overturn.
{{/usCountry}}The high court noted the case originated from an anonymous tip rather than solid evidence. It emphasised that appeals against acquittal require overwhelming proof to overturn.
{{/usCountry}}The killing of British nationals was among the cases the Supreme Court appointed Special Investigation Team (2008) reinvestigated.
{{/usCountry}}The killing of British nationals was among the cases the Supreme Court appointed Special Investigation Team (2008) reinvestigated.
{{/usCountry}}The high court found inconsistencies in witnesses’ statements. The survivor claimed the mob consisted of 15-20 people. An independent witness, Pravin Patel, testified that the crowd was much larger—around 150-200 people.
The investigation relied heavily on an anonymous fax sent to the British high commission naming the accused. The high court observed that this was a shaky foundation for prosecution. It cited the fax and added that the investigation was not based on any independent eyewitness.
