DILAVAR HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
LAWS(SC)-1990-10-18
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: GUJARAT)
Decided on October 05,1990

Dilawar Hussain Mohammadbhai Laliwala And Others Appellant
VERSUS
State of Gujarat and Another Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

MOHAMMAD RASHID KHAN VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1994-4-19] [REFERRED TO]
ACHARAPARAMBATH PRADEEPAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2005-7-19] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOKKUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1992-4-21] [REFERRED TO]
RAM JIWAN SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1998-4-65] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. AJAY SINGH [LAWS(PAT)-2012-4-30] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2012-4-45] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA MOCHI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(SC)-2002-4-60] [REFERRED]
PATEL VISHUBHAI SHIVRAMBHAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2004-6-3] [RELIED ON]
PERARIVALAN VS. DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION MADRAS [LAWS(MAD)-1991-7-89] [REFERRED TO]
VYAS RAM @ VYAS KAHAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(SC)-2013-9-71] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. ARJUN CHOURASIA [LAWS(PAT)-2014-8-29] [REFERRED TO]
JAGANNATH AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-7-311] [REFERRED TO]
JAI RAM SINGH AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-3-7] [REFERRED TO]
BHANU PRATAP SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2016-6-90] [REFERRED]
MOHAMMAD IQBAL M SHAIKH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-1998-4-89] [RELIED ON]
ABDUL KAYYUM VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2012-4-65] [REFERRED TO]
JALLA KHAN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [LAWS(RAJ)-2013-9-37] [REFERRED TO]
PRADEEPAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2005-5-40] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASH SONI & ORS. VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2007-4-119] [REFERRED TO]
GYASI & OTHERS VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2015-7-455] [REFERRED]
SURVENDRA KUMAR @ SUNIL KUMAR & ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2015-9-404] [REFERRED]
GORAKH SAHNI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2009-11-135] [REFERRED TO]
MAYABEN SURENDRABHAI KODNANI VS. S.I.T. [LAWS(GJH)-2018-4-50] [REFERRED TO]
THE REGISTRAR GENERAL BENGALURU VS. VENKATESHA @ CHANDRA BIN VENKATASWAMY CHANNASANDRA [LAWS(KAR)-2017-7-218] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

R. M. Sahai, J. - (1.)Tragic trauma of ghastly, inhuman and beastly behaviour of one community against another depicted for weeks and weeks, in this criminal appeal, forcefully, at times, emotionally still hangs heavily. What a tragedy Eight human lives roasted alive. Five in waiting for gallows. Neighbours residing peacefully for generations sharing common happiness and sorrow even playing cricket together suddenly went mad. Blood thirsty for each other. Burning, looting and killing became order of the day. Even ladies attempted to prevent fire brigade from extinguishing fire. How pathetic and sad.
(2.)Still sadder was the manner in which the machinery of law moved. From accusation in the charge-sheet that accused were part of unlawful assembly of 1500 to 2000 the number came down to 150 to 200 in evidence and the charge was framed against sixty three under Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 (in brief TADA Act) and various offences including Sec. 302 under Indian Penal Code. Even from that fifty six were acquitted either because there was no evidence, and if there was evidence against some it was not sufficient to warrant their conviction. What an affront to fundamental rights and human dignity. Liberty and freedom of these persons was in chains for more than a year. For no reason. One even died in confinement.
(3.)All this generated a little emotion during submissions. But sentiments or emotions, however, strong are neither relevant nor have any place in a court of law. Acquittal or conviction depends on proof or otherwise of the criminological chain which invariably comprises of why, where, when, how and who. Each knot of the chain has to be proved, beyond shadow of doubt to bring home the guilt. Any crack or loosening in it weakens the prosecution. Each link, must be so consistent that the only conclusion which must follow is that the accused is guilty. Although guilty should not escape. But on reliable evidence truthful witnesses and honest and fair investigation. No free man should be amerced by framing or to assuage feelings as it is fatal to human dignity and destructive of social, ethical and legal norm. Heinousness of crime or cruelty in its execution howsoever abhorring and hateful cannot reflect in deciding the guilt.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.