By TCN Special Correspondent,
Ahmedabad: It took almost 19 years for a resident of Kavi village in Bharuch district to get justice in a case of unlawful assembly in which he was punished for two and a half months by the Bharuch Sessions Judge in 1992.
Ismail Ibrahim Gor Sheth was recently cleared of the charges and declared innocent after Gujarat High Court Judge Z K Saiyed quashed and set aside the order of the Sessions judge.
In his judgement, Justice Saiyed observed that the trial judge convicted the appellant “without appreciating the evidence in a proper manner.’’ Pronouncing the judgement, Justice Saiyed said that the prosecution could not prove the possession of the weapon by the appellant.
“Similarly, there was no case against the appellant for the offence under Section 143 of the Indian Penal Code pertaining to formation of an unlawful assembly”, the judge further observed.
Stressing that “the object of the assembly is to be proved against a person who is alleged to be a member of such an unlawful assembly’’, Justice Saiyed said that there was nothing on the part of the prosecution to prove that he was a member of the unlawful assembly. “The evidence in this regard is unreliable,’’ Justice Saiyed pointed out.
According to details of the case, a violent incident had taken place during Lok Sabha elections for Bharuch Parliamentary seat in Kavi village on November 24, 1989. Two persons named Amarsinh Bhupatbhai and Vinodchandra were injured in an attack by a mob. Among several persons booked for the violence included Sheth as well. Sheth was booked under Section 143 of IPC pertaining to making unlawful assembly.
Though there were several contradictions in the documentary evidence produced against Sheth by the prosecution, yet he was sentenced to two and half months of imprisonment by the Bharuch sessions court. However, Sheth had secured bail against the order.
Sheth’s advocate Hardik Jani submitted before the high court that the trial court had committed error by holding the prosecution evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
Pointing out that there was discrepancy in the deposition of the complainant(police) and other witnesses, the advocate argued that while the police deposed that there was a mob of 1500 people indulging in the disturbance but some other witnesses deposed that there were only 50 to 60 persons or 200 to 300 people in the mob.
Submitting that the prosecution’s own story was not supported by their own witnesses about weapons recovered from the accused, Jani argued that the complainant (police) lodged the complaint with an ulterior motive.
After hearing both the sides, the high court set aside and quashed the sessions court order against Sheth.