<p>Ahmedabad: Observing that the trial court "erred in the appreciation of the evidence," the <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/gujarat-high-court">Gujarat High Court</a> has acquitted three men 19 years after they were convicted to five years jail for their roles during 2002 post Godhra riots which broke out in Anand district.</p><p>"...conviction is not based on reliable and corroborative evidence. The identification of the accused have not been proved during the trial. The present appellants whether were the member of the unlawful assembly was not proved, and that they had common object of creating arson had not been proved, and any act of the appellants accused in prosecution of the common object, of setting things on fire and damaging the private and public property had not been proved during the trial," a bench of justice Gita Gopi noted in the judgement passed on Monday.</p><p>The court allowed their appeal petitions and ordered the acquittal of Sachin Patel, Ashok Patel and Ashok Gupta. They had been sentenced to five years imprisonment by a fast-track court in 2006 for being part of illegal assembly and arson during the riots in Anand district.</p>.Manual scavenging: Gujarat HC seeks 'blueprint' from state to end this 'disease'.<p>A total of nine persons had been booked by the police who were part of the armed mob on March 1, 2002 which went on a rampage at Lotia Bagod in view of the killings of 59 karsevaks returning from Ayodhya at Godhra railway station on February 27, 2002. Four persons had been convicted by the fast-track court of whom one person passed away during the pendency. </p><p>The incident had sparked state wide communal riots. Court order states that the mob armed with deadly weapons broke shops of the complainant and other witnesses and "committed thefts of goods and materials from the shop."</p><p>The high court found that materials on record fail to prove that the petitioners were part of the unlawful assembly. The court also found that charges of arson and damaging private property of the complainant and the witnesses had not been proved during the trial.</p>
<p>Ahmedabad: Observing that the trial court "erred in the appreciation of the evidence," the <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/gujarat-high-court">Gujarat High Court</a> has acquitted three men 19 years after they were convicted to five years jail for their roles during 2002 post Godhra riots which broke out in Anand district.</p><p>"...conviction is not based on reliable and corroborative evidence. The identification of the accused have not been proved during the trial. The present appellants whether were the member of the unlawful assembly was not proved, and that they had common object of creating arson had not been proved, and any act of the appellants accused in prosecution of the common object, of setting things on fire and damaging the private and public property had not been proved during the trial," a bench of justice Gita Gopi noted in the judgement passed on Monday.</p><p>The court allowed their appeal petitions and ordered the acquittal of Sachin Patel, Ashok Patel and Ashok Gupta. They had been sentenced to five years imprisonment by a fast-track court in 2006 for being part of illegal assembly and arson during the riots in Anand district.</p>.Manual scavenging: Gujarat HC seeks 'blueprint' from state to end this 'disease'.<p>A total of nine persons had been booked by the police who were part of the armed mob on March 1, 2002 which went on a rampage at Lotia Bagod in view of the killings of 59 karsevaks returning from Ayodhya at Godhra railway station on February 27, 2002. Four persons had been convicted by the fast-track court of whom one person passed away during the pendency. </p><p>The incident had sparked state wide communal riots. Court order states that the mob armed with deadly weapons broke shops of the complainant and other witnesses and "committed thefts of goods and materials from the shop."</p><p>The high court found that materials on record fail to prove that the petitioners were part of the unlawful assembly. The court also found that charges of arson and damaging private property of the complainant and the witnesses had not been proved during the trial.</p>