Abstract
An overview of the Zahira Habibullah H Sheikh and Anr v. State of Gujarat and Ors [2004] 4 SCC 158 case is provided below. This case, also known as the “best bakery” case, is regarded as a landmark decision because it addressed issues such as witness tampering, the role of influential politicians in misleading the court, the impugned role of prosecutors, and the foundation of a free and fair trial in addition to the post-Godhra riot incident.
This case has been generally read, summarised, and evaluated in the headings below:Facts of the case, issues raised, Arguments made by the appellants, legal aspects , well known precedents , summary of the judgement, conclusion, and recommendations. The legal provisions included in articles 14, 21, and 139(A) of the constitution, as well as sections 409(1), 173(8), and 311 of the CrPC, are the main subjects of the case. Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 is also addressed. The supreme court reiterated in this decision the famous Bentham saying that “witnesses are the eyes and ears of justice”. The court addressed how the public administration, at times, affects the administration of justice and results in travesties of justice in its insightful judgement. It also advanced the triangulation of interest in criminal law.
BACKGROUND
- An enraged mob set fire to the “best bakery” restaurant between 8:30 p.m. on March 1 and 11 a.m. on March 2 in retaliation for the Godhra tragedy, which occurred on February 27, 2002, and resulted in the deaths of 56 people, predominantly karsevaks, on the Sabarmati express in Gujarat.
- 14 people died as a result of this act of community rage-fueled incineration. The first appellant and main witness, Zahira Habibullah, saw the deaths of three bakery employees and eleven members of her own family. In addition to her, there were other witnesses.
- In June 2002, a charge sheet was submitted against the defendant. Nevertheless, numerous witnesses, including Zahira, changed their statements in court regarding the statements they made during the inquiry process. She claimed in court that she had been on the terrace when the event occurred and had missed seeing the criminals as a result. As a result, the trial court cleared all 21 of the defendants in the proceedings in its ruling from June 27, 2003, citing a dearth of evidence.
- Judge H U Mahida of the Additional Sessions then came to the conclusion that the police may have implicated innocent individuals in order to bring the criminals to justice. According to the appellant, the trial was inefficient, the investigation was defective, and the outcome failed to fulfil the goal of fairness in the criminal judicial system.
- When Zahira later went to the National Human Rights Council (NHRC), she claimed that she had been coerced into making a false deposition and becoming hostile by prominent politicians. As a result, many believed that the trial court’s decision was prejudiced and produced a serious miscarriage of justice.
- The Gujarat high court received an appeal, but it was dismissed by the court. Also, the state government’s request to start a new trial based on new evidence discovered in accordance with section 391 of the Criminal Procedure Code was denied. The same outcome occurred when a section 311 of the CrPC request for a re-examination of the witnesses was made.
- A Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed to the Supreme Court by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), Zahira Habibullah, and Citizens for Justice and Peace. The court recognised this as a petition in accordance with Article 32 of the Indian Constitution.
AUTHORS COMMENTS ON LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE JUDGEMENT:
The case revolves around the interpretation of various articles of the constitution as well as sections from the CrPC and the Indian Evidence Act.
- Article 19 of Indian Constitution[1]
The essential right to free speech and expression is guaranteed by Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. The relevance of this basic right, and its role in ensuring a fair trial can be seen in the Zahira Habibullah case.
The right to free speech and expression includes the right to transmit and receive information, and that this right is critical for democracy to work. In the context of a criminal prosecution, the right to free expression and expression allows witnesses to testify without fear of intimidation or retaliation.
The witnesses in the Zahira Habibullah case had been exposed to intimidation and harassment, which had contributed to their becoming hostile.
The state has a responsibility to protect witnesses and safeguard their safety so that they may testify freely and fearlessly.
The right to free expression applies to the media, which plays an important role in reporting on cases and maintaining openness in the judicial process. Also the media has the freedom to report on cases and voice their opinions as long as they do not obstruct the administration of justice.
Therefore in the Zahira Habibullah case, authors could believe that how much the value of free speech and expression is in ensuring a fair and impartial trial, as well as the need for witness protection and confidentiality.
- Article 21 of Indian Constitution[2]
The basic right to life and personal liberty is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court of India ruled in the Zahira Habibullah case that this basic right is necessary for the protection of human dignity and the rule of law.
The right to life and personal liberty in the context of a criminal prosecution includes the right to a fair trial devoid of fear, compulsion, and intimidation. The state has a responsibility to safeguard the safety and security of witnesses so that they can testify freely and fearlessly.
The right to life and personal liberty includes the right to justice. The witnesses in the Zahira Habibullah case had been denied access to justice due to the state’s inability to safeguard them and provide a fair trial.
In the Zahira Habibullah case, for example, the Supreme Court of India underlined the relevance of the right to life and personal liberty in ensuring a fair and impartial trial, as well as the necessity of witness protection and the state’s obligation to enable access to justice.
- Section 311 of Criminal Procedure Law[3]
Section 311 of the Indian Criminal Procedure Code empowers a court to call and examine anyone who has previously been questioned or whose evidence has been considered during the trial. The goal of this part is to allow the court to clarify any uncertainty or elicit any further information that may be required for a fair judgement in the case.
“While considering the scope and ambit of Section 311”, It is observed in Mohanlal v. Union of India[4] that the very usage of words such as “any court”,”at any stage” O”any enquiry or trial or other proceedings”, “any person” and “any such person” clearly spells out that the section has expressed in the broadest possible terms and does not limit the discretion of the court in any way.
However, as previously said, the breadth necessitates a comparable care that the discretionary powers be employed as the necessities of justice warrant and applied judicially with circumspection and in accordance with the rules of the Code. The second half of the provision gives the court no option, but obligates and compels it to take the required procedures if the new evidence to be collected is crucial to the just determination of the case, “essential” to an active and attentive mind, not one set on abandoning or abdicating. The purpose of the clause is to allow the court to reach the truth regardless of whether the prosecution or defence has failed to submit evidence required for a just and proper disposition of the case.
Section 311 in the Zahira Habibullah case was used to call Zahira and other witnesses to explain their prior comments. It was noted in the judgement that the case had far-reaching ramifications and that it was critical that justice be delivered.
During the hearing, Zahira recanted her previous comments and claimed that she was pressured into delivering false testimony. She was found guilty of perjury and sentenced to one year in jail by the court. The court stated that Zahira’s shift in testimony was influenced by extraneous factors and resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
The employment of Section 311 in the Zahira Habibullah case emphasises the relevance of this provision in ensuring that justice is served and the judicial process is fair and transparent, and to ensure that the trial’s conclusion is just. However this same section was not invoked by neither trial court nor high court in Gujrat.
- Section 391 of Criminal Procedure Law[5]
The competence of the appellate court to mandate the production of new evidence or the interview of witnesses is addressed under Section 391 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). Authors have evaluated the provisions of Section 391 CrPC in regard to the trial in the Zahira Habibullah case.
During the trial, several witnesses became hostile and did not testify as they had previously stated. The trial court used their previous remarks as evidence.
However, the prosecution had failed to adequately interrogate these witnesses, despite the fact that their testimony was critical to the case. The Section 391 CrPC allows the appellate court to direct the production of new evidence or the interrogation of witnesses, and concluded that this authority should be used only when the interests of justice require it.To reach this judgement, It examined the evidence of the material witnesses and noted various pertinent elements. The need for extra evidence must be considered in the context of the requirement for a just conclusion, and it cannot be used to fill a void.
This Court’s judgments in Jamatraj Kewalji Govani v. State of Maharashtra[6] and Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India[7] were stated during the proceedings for better clarifications.
In Rambhau v. State of Maharashtra[8], it was determined that the purpose of Section 391 is to achieve the goals of justice rather than to cover gaps. The court must keep these beneficial ideas in mind. Though the court has broad power, it must exercise it judicially, and the legislation has provided a safety valve by mandating the recording of reasons.
As a result, the Supreme Court ordered that some witnesses be re-examined and that more material be produced in order to guarantee that the trial was handled properly and justly. The interests of justice should take precedence over procedural details, and it concluded that the appellate court has broad powers to guarantee that justice is done.
Thus, in the Zahira Habibullah case, the Supreme Court relied on Section 391 CrPC rules to require witness re-examination and the presentation of further material in order to guarantee that justice was done.
- “Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act states[9]:
‘‘In order to discover or collect appropriate proof of important facts, the Judge may ask whatever question he pleases, in any form, at any time, of any witness, or of the parties.”
“Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872” authorises a court to conduct an investigation in any matter where it believes it is essential. The authors analyse Section 165 of the Evidence Act to understand the SC’s order a retrial in a different state in the Zahira Habibula case when Zahira Habibula, who had previously identified the accused in the trial court, became hostile during the retrial.
The hostile witness had rendered it impossible for the trial to proceed, and the case had to be retried in a different state to ensure a fair trial. The state administration is also to be blamed for failing to safeguard witnesses and for failing to prosecute effectively.
The Zahira Habibula case highlighted the necessity of witness protection and fair and unbiased trials in India. It also resulted in criminal justice changes, such as the implementation of witness protection programmes and the establishment of fast-track tribunals for instances involving communal violence.
Article 139 A(2) of the constitution :
‘‘The Supreme Court may, if it deems it expedient so to do for the ends of justice, transfer any case, appeal or other proceedings pending before any High Court to any other High Court’’
“This article allows the Supreme Court to transfer cases from one high court to another”, in cases where it feels that free trial may not be possible, by way of compromising the
witnesses or destruction of evidence in the home state.
Section 409(1) of CrPC:
‘‘Whenever it is made to appear to the Supreme Court that an order under this section is expedient for the ends of justice, it may direct that any particular case or appeal be transferred from one High Court to another HighCourt’’
With respect to the the transfer of cases from one state to another we looked into the landmark judgment of Maneka Sanjay Gandhi vs Rani Jethmalani[10] which clearly states that The primary imperative of the administration of justice is the assurance of a fair trial, and the fundamental criteria for the court to examine when a petition for transfer is made is not a party’s hypersensitivity or relative convenience, or the simple” availability of legal services or such minor grievances”. “Something more substantial, more persuasive, and more perilous from the standpoint of public justice and its concomitant environment is required if the court is to utilize its transfer.
AUTHORS COMMENT ON SUPREME COURT’S JUDGEMENT
- Regarding the public prosecutor’s improper actions
It was stated that they were “perfunctory and everything but fair without any specific goal of learning the truth and holding those accountable for the crime”
The public prosecutor, in the opinion of the court, did not carry out his duties honourably. The Trial Court “in turn appeared to be a quiet spectator, mute to the manipulations and preferred to be oblivious to sacrilege being perpetrated to justice” and The Public Prosecutor’s role was more like to that of a “defence counsel than one whose duty it was to provide the truth to the court”.
examining agency’s function
The Court cited Bentham when it said that witnesses are the “eyes and ears of justice.”
The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s judgement, holding that an unjustified acquittal that is based on tainted evidence, a targeted investigation, a superficial trial, and the testimony of witnesses who have been threatened or intimidated is not an acquittal under the law and cannot have any credibility attached to it.
Regarding witness protection, the prosecutor may have attempted to safeguard the witness’s identity by asking for in-camera proceedings and witness protection. Moreover, he didn’t try to approach the wounded witnesses. In one case of flagrant misconduct, the public prosecutor opted to exclude a crucial witness because he was mentally unstable.
The trial court agreed with this without even the most basic checks to see if the witness in question was indeed mentally ill. Many witnesses were likewise not questioned without any explanation at all.
The reasoning of the court was that a fair and impartial trial might have determined the defendants’ guilt or innocence in the Best Bakery case.
Regarding the state government’s role
The State has a duty to protect witnesses, especially in sensitive matters, in the wider interests of society. As a guardian of its citizens, the State must make sure that witnesses may testify in safety during trials without worrying about consequences. The Court cited the numerous instances in which courts encountered witnesses who became hostile as a result of threats, coercion, or for financial or political gain. These incidents had the cumulative effect of undermining and destroying public confidence in the administration of justice, which resulted in anarchy, oppression, and injustice as well as the dissolution of the rule of law.
- The Fundamentals of a Fair Trial
Fair trial is defined as a “triangulation of the interests of the accused, the victim, and society,” while denial of a fair trial is defined as an injustice to the victim, society, and the accused. “A fair trial is one in which there is no bias or prejudice for or against the defendant, the witnesses, or the issue under investigation”. The court ruled that, as guaranteed by natural justice principles and articles 14 and 21 of the constitution, everyone has the right to a fair hearing.(Audi Alteram Partem). Due process of law must not be violated by a biassed trial.
- Defects in the management and conduct of both the trial and the appeal hearing
There were certain Flaws in the management and conduct of both the trial and the appeal hearing In its ruling, the Supreme Court made a number of significant general observations on the duties of courts, the functions of the criminal justice system, the right to a fair trial, and the treatment of witnesses.
When commenting on the criminal justice system and “the right to a fair trial”, the Supreme Court noted that the main goals of the justice system and the right to a fair trial are to protect the public from unfair trials and to ensure that everyone is treated fairly.
It should be a “search for truth and not a battle over technicalities” as the goal of a criminal trial is to “mete out justice, convict the guilty, and protect the innocent.” A trial that has the main goal of discovering the truth also has to be impartial towards all parties. This “requires a delicate judicial balancing of competing interests…the interests of the accused and the public and to a significant extent that of the victim have to be weighed not losing sight of the public interest involved in the prosecution of persons who commit offences.”
Authors noticed that the Court decided that not only the accused must be treated properly; victims, their family members, and other relations also have an “inbuilt right” to be treated equally in a criminal trial, and denying both the accused and the victim a fair trial is an injustice. An unfair trial will come from intimidating witnesses, pressuring them to provide false testimony, and failing to hear crucial witnesses.
- Criminal offences are social injustices
Criminal acts are public wrongs because they have an impact on the general population. As a result, the court cannot ignore what is best for society. By taking an active role in the trial and displaying intellect, the presiding judge must stop acting as a bystander and merely a recording device. This means that the judge has the authority to actively gather evidence when doing so is required to establish the truth and uphold justice. To avoid judicial overreach, this rule must, however, only be utilized in exceptions and with careful interpretation. Section 311 of the CrPC and Section 165 of the IEA of 1872 both confer these powers.
The trial itself did not adhere to the fundamental requirements of a fair trial, the court further found, even if the accused had been cleared by the trial court. There was therefore no legal acquittal in this case.
- “Transferring the matter to the Bombay High Court”
“The matter had to be moved to the Bombay high court under section 409(1) of the CrPC in order to ensure a free and fair trial”. The CJ was then requested to appoint a court of competent jurisdiction.
- Witness protection is an urgent requirement.
According to Bentham, “if the witness is unable to operate as the eyes and ears of justice”, the trial becomes putrefied and paralyzed, and it can no longer be considered a fair trial. The State has a duty to safeguard witnesses in the larger interests of society, particularly in delicate instances; as a guardian of its citizens, it must guarantee that witnesses can testify securely and without fear of penalties during trials.
Threats, compulsion, enticements, and monetary incentives may induce the witness to become hostile, as may political clout. Thus, in order to avoid making a farce of a judicial trial, the state must safeguard the witnesses. The victims were also granted the right to have a say in the nomination of the public prosecutor by the court.(contrary to how it actually happens).
Furthermore, the court ruled that the state of Gujarat must provide witnesses with security. If the witnesses want it, the state of Maharashtra will also provide them with the required protection.
“”The trial court has the authority under the Criminal Procedure Code and the Indian Evidence Act to recall and re-examine the adverse witnesses”. The Supreme Court also ruled that the High Court’s determination that Zahira Sheikh was exploited by those with “oblique motives,” and that witnesses who filed affidavits were of unsound mind, untruthful, and easily influenced, without material or reasonable and tangible foundation.
- High court’s decision without justification was improper.
The high court denied the appeal on December 26, 2003, but stated that reasons will be provided later due to a lack of time due to the court’s closure for winter vacations. This was deemed undesirable by the Supreme Court.
CONCLUSION
The Authors concluded that the Supreme Court’s decision to compel a retrial and transfer of the Best Bakery case has been generally hailed as a “landmark.”
The Supreme Court specifically alluded to the relationship between access to justice and human rights protection in the instant case, and issued a number of observations on the role of state governments and courts in maintaining the integrity of, and public trust in, the legal system. Fundamentally, the Zahira Habibullah case highlighted serious concerns about the credibility of witness evidence, the necessity for witness protection, and the integrity of India’s legal system.
In the Best Bakery case, Zahira’s original evidence was critical, but her later reversal and the eventual acquittal of the guilty underscore the difficulties in guaranteeing justice in complicated and high-profile cases. To retain the public’s faith and confidence in the judicial system, it is critical to protect witnesses from intimidation and coercion, ensure impartiality and openness in the “judiciary, and respect the rule of law.”
Finally, the case of Zahira Habibullah serves as a reminder of the continued effort required to reform the judicial system and secure justice for everyone.
The Zahira Habibullah case was a watershed moment in Indian legal history, addressing various critical topics such as witness protection, the authority of the appellate court, and the administration of justice. The lawsuit emerged from the 2002 Gujarat riots, which killed over a thousand people, predominantly Muslims.
The case involves the prosecution of numerous people accused of murdering several Muslims during the riots. During the trial, several witnesses became hostile and did not testify as they had previously stated. The trial court cited their previous remarks as evidence and acquitted several of the defendants.
“The case was subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court of India”, which considered various legal issues, including witness protection, appellate court authority, and justice administration. The court determined that witness protection was critical to ensuring a fair trial and emphasised the need of the state providing appropriate witness protection measures. The court also concluded that the appellate court had broad powers to guarantee that justice was done, and that the interests of justice should take precedence over procedural details.
In its decision, the Supreme Court ordered that some witnesses be re-examined and that further evidence be produced in order to guarantee that justice was served. The court also found other accused people guilty of murder and other crimes and punished them.
Overall, the Zahira Habibullah case was significant in Indian legal history, emphasising the significance of witness protection, the appellate court’s authority, and the administration of justice. The case prompted significant legal reforms, including the implementation of the Witness Protection Scheme, with the goal of ensuring that justice is served and the rule of law is protected.
Author : BHUMI SHARMA, A student at Symbiosis Law School Nagpur, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at IIPRD
[1] Article 19, the Constitution of India, 1950.
[2] Article 21, the Constitution of India, 1950.
[3] Section 311, code of criminal procedure, 1973
[4]“1991 Supp (1) SCC 271 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 595”, Mahanlal Shamji Soniv. Union of India
[5] Section 391, code of criminal procedure, 1973
[6] AIR 1968 SC 178 : (1967) 3 SCR 415 : 1968 Cri LJ 231, Jamatraj Kowaji Govani v. State of Maharashtra
[7] 1991 Supp (1) SCC 271 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 595, Mahanlal Shamji Soniv. Union of India
[8] (2001) 4 SCC 759 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 812, Rambhau v
State of Maharashtra
[9] See, section 165, Indian Evidence Act, 1872
[10] (1979) 4 SCC 167 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 934, Maneka Sanjay Gandhi v. Rani Jethmalani
