Dhirubhai Bhailabhai Chauhan vs The State of Gujarat: Case Analysis

Why in the Spotlight? - Dhirubhai Bhailabhai Chauhan vs The State of Gujarat (2025)

The case of Dhirubhai Bhailabhai Chauhan vs The State of Gujarat (2025) drew attention as to whether a person can be convicted for rioting and unlawful assembly merely because they were present at the scene. The decision of Supreme Court set an important precedent on the burden of proof in cases of mass violence and stressed the importance of credible evidence over assumptions. Discover more in-depth analyses of important Supreme Court decisions by exploring Recent Judgements of Supreme Court

Introduction of Dhirubhai Bhailabhai Chauhan vs The State of Gujarat (2025)

The case of Dhirubhai Bhailabhai Chauhan vs The State of Gujarat (2025) originated from the 2002 Gujarat riots, particularly an incident of rioting and destruction of property in Vadod village. The case addressed important questions regarding unlawful assembly, rioting and evidentiary standards for conviction under Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court acquitted all 19 accused whereas the Gujarat High Court convicted seven individuals based on their presence at the crime scene. The matter was then brought before the Supreme Court.

Download Dhirubhai Bhailabhai Chauhan vs The State of Gujarat PDF

The case at hand revolved around a tragic incident of rioting and destruction of property on 28th February, 2002 in Vadod village, Gujarat. Following the violence, 19 individuals underwent trial for various offences under Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Trial Court acquitted all the accused whereas the High Court of Gujarat later convicted seven individuals based on their presence at the crime scene. The appeals were filed against his partial reversal of acquittal. The following are the brief facts of Dhirubhai Bhailabhai Chauhan vs The State of Gujarat -

Facts of the Case

On 28th February, 2002 at 10:10 PM a police patrol unit received information about a mob surrounding a graveyard and mosque in Vadod village, Gujarat. When the police arrived and directed the crowd to disperse, the mob retaliated by pelting stones, caused damage to police vehicles and injured police personnel. The police in order to manage the situation, fired tear gas shells and gunshots which resulted in a stampede-like situation. The police arrested seven individuals at the scene namely -

1. Dhirubhai Bhailalbhai Chauhan
2. Maheshbhai Bhailalbhai Chauhan
3. Mukeshbhai Ambalal Patel
4. Kiritbhai Manibhai Patel
5. Ravjibhai Harmanbhai Patel
6. Dipakkumar Bhopalbhai Negi
7. Sanjaykumar Laxmansinh Mahida

Trial Court Judgment

The Additional Sessions Judge on 11th July, 2005 acquitted all 19 accused by giving them the benefit of the doubt. The Court stated the reasons for the acquittal -

• Unreliable Testimonies: Police witnesses failed to identify any accused and their statements appeared ordinary.
• Inconsistent Witness Statements: Prosecution witness PW-2 claimed to have seen the accused during the incident but his statement contained discrepancies.
• Lack of Corroborative Evidence: The Investigating officer admitted that the alleged riot caused no damage to house of PW-2.

On the basis of the above findings, the Trial Court held that the Prosecution had failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted all accused.

High Court Judgment

The State of Gujarat dissatisfied by the decision of the Trial Court appealed the acquittal before the Gujarat High Court. On 5th May, 2016 the High Court upheld the acquittal of 12 out of 19 accused. The High Court observed that -

• Their absence from the FIR and lack of arrest at the crime scene.
• The absence of an identification parade or other corroborative evidence connecting them to the offence.
• Contradictions in the testimonies of key prosecution witnesses.

However, the High Court of Gujarat overturned the acquittal of accused nos. 1 to 5 and 7. The Court stated that since these individuals were arrested at the scene and named in the FIR their presence at the site of rioting stood proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, the High Court of Gujarat convicted them under Section 143, Section 147, Section 153(A), Section 295, Section 436 and Section 332 of Indian Penal Code.

Appeals Before the Supreme Court

Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court of Gujarat, the convicted accused challenged the decision before the Apex Court and contended that -

• Their mere presence in a public space did not establish their participation in the riot or unlawful assembly.
• The High Court relied on the same witnesses it had deemed unreliable while acquitting the other accused.
• There was no direct evidence linking them to the offences.

The main issue in Dhirubhai Bhailabhai Chauhan vs The State of Gujarat was whether the mere presence of individuals at the scene of a group clash or riot is sufficient to convict them for unlawful assembly and rioting under the Indian Penal Code?

The Supreme Court also analysed whether Courts can convict individuals based solely on their presence at the crime scene without any direct evidence of their active participation or intent to commit an offence. The Court also examined the reliability of witness testimony.

Judgment and Impact of Dhirubhai Bhailabhai Chauhan vs The State of Gujarat (2025)

The 2-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra in Dhirubhai Bhailabhai Chauhan vs The State of Gujarat acquitted six individuals convicted of rioting and unlawful assembly during the 2002 Gujarat riots. The Supreme Court emphasises that in cases involving large group clashes it is the duty of the Courts to ensure that innocent bystanders are not wrongly convicted.

A Bench comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and Manoj Misra held that being present at the crime scene does not automatically make someone part of an unlawful assembly. Conviction requires substantial evidence proving active participation or a shared intent with the objectives of assembly.

The Appellants in Dhirubhai Bhailabhai Chauhan vs The State of Gujarat who were residents of Vadod village contended that their presence at the scene was natural and did not prove involvement in rioting. They argued that the Prosecution failed to establish any overt act on their part and even the Trial Court had rejected the eyewitness testimonies.

The Gujarat High Court had reversed their acquittal and held that their presence at the crime scene indicated participation in the unlawful assembly. However, the Supreme Court rejected this reasoning and highlighted that in cases of large-scale violence the courts should be cautious in relying on witness statements.

The decision of Supreme Court in Dhirubhai Bhailabhai Chauhan vs The State of Gujarat highlighted that no weapons or inflammable materials were recovered from the Appellants. Moreover when the police fired shots to disperse the crowd people scattered in panic making it possible that innocent individuals were mistakenly arrested. The Court observed that without clear evidence of participation mere presence at the scene or arrest does not justify a conviction.

On the basis of the above findings, the Supreme Court in Dhirubhai Bhailabhai Chauhan vs The State of Gujarat set aside the decision of Gujarat High Court and acquitted the Appellants by giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Conclusion

In Dhirubhai Bhailabhai Chauhan vs The State of Gujarat (2025) the Supreme Court highlighted the principle of individual culpability in criminal law. It ruled that being present at a crime scene does not automatically imply participation in an unlawful assembly. The Court noted that without direct evidence of active involvement or intent, conviction cannot be justified.