It has been written by Somya Chhabra, a second-year law student of Law Centre-2, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi.

The case of Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v State of Gujarat is a prominent case that illuminates critical issues such as witness protection, the right to a fair trial of an accused person, and the integrity of judges. It is also known as the ‘best bakery case’. This case is from the Gujarat riots of 2002, where 14 people were killed due to a fire set in a bakery by a mob. Zahira Sheikh was the key witness of the prosecution who testified against the accused. The case has also raised several important issues such as witness protection and the quality and credibility of evidence before the court.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

A business concern known as ‘best bakery’ was burnt down by an unruly mob of a large number of people killing nearly 14 people. The attacks were presumed to be a part of retaliatory action to avenge the killing of persons burnt to death in Sabarmati Express. Zahira was the main eyewitness of the crime along with other witnesses who also lost their family members in this unfortunate and gruesome incident. However, they retracted their statements before the trial which led to the acquittal of the accused based on lack of evidence.

Later, an appeal was filed in front of the Supreme Court of India by Zahira claiming that the witnesses were threatened and abused initially. This forced them to retract their statements. The actions of the public prosecutor were also claimed to be negligent, improper and highly corrupt. Different witnesses and their statements were also deliberately kept out of the trial and were misinterpreted and misrepresented.

LEGAL ISSUES INVOLVED:

● Whether the public prosecutor and faculty along with investigating agencies biased towards the accused?

● Whether the Trial court and High court conducted the trial properly, appreciating all the evidence record?

● Whether a retrial can be conducted in the given circumstances?

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS:

Petitioner Zahira contested that the entire trial was unfair and highly inclined towards the accused, designed to get their acquittal. Witnesses were threatened and false statements were recorded. Investigating agencies and public prosecutors acted on behalf of the accused. The whole trial was highly unjust and one-sided. There was an appeal for a fresh investigation as an earlier one was not conducted properly. A trial outside the state was also asked for.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS:

Respondent did not contest the petitioner’s plea for retrial, however, argued that a fresh investigation was not necessary. It was also submitted that the plea for retrial outside the state cannot be granted as that would raise serious questions against the sanctity of the courts of Gujarat. Section 391 of the code was rejected on merits as per the state. They argued that would be incorrect to say that the investigation was corrupt and cursory. The stand of the state, however, changed from time to time. They also argued that the submissions of the petitioners were trivial and extraneous.

JUDGEMENT:

The court said that it cannot be denied that the investigation was distorted and witnesses were kept out of the trial with malicious aforethought. The High Court was improper in its functioning and hasty conclusions were drawn lacking a neutral approach and judicious examination of the facts and circumstances of the case. The court further said that the plea for retrial should be granted as the judgement of the High Court appears erroneous and out of order. The circumstances surrounding the case were peculiar and the proper course in such circumstances would be to conduct a retrial. There was no basis for holding that the FIR was tampered with. How the High Court pronounced its judgement and the way it acted appeared highly illicit.

Crimes are the wrongs against society and the state, causing an infringement of public rights and duties impacting the entire community in general. It is, therefore, the state acting in place of the accused protecting the interests of the entire community. Courts in administering a fair trial must be impartial, without any fear or favour towards a particular side. The court must ensure that there is no denial of justice and that all the relevant facts of a case are considered and evaluated by both the prosecution and the investigating authorities. The fault of the investigating agencies is not to be borne by the victims or the witnesses and the court must keep that in mind.

A tainted acquittal is no acquittal in the eyes of the law and such is eminent by glancing at the mere facts of the case. The examination of witnesses was improper and the High Court appeared prejudiced in its analysis, judgement and decisions. The court held that after analysing the evidence on record and the circumstances of the case, a retrial seemed appropriate to ensure the delivery of justice. The court ordered for the accused to be taken back to custody, and to restart the investigation keeping in mind Section 309 of the code.

ANALYSIS OF THE LAW:

Some of the essential features that need to be ensured at a fair trial are-

● Public Interest

● Establishment of truth

● Appreciation of all the evidence on record

● Following all legal rules and precedents

All these features are linked with public and human rights protection in particular. Denial of a fair trial causes an injustice to both the victim and the society. Witnesses play an important role in every trial and if they are threatened or abused or forced to give false statements, it would certainly lead to the negation of the concept of fair trial.

The petition for transfer of case can be granted when the court is satisfied that the trial has not been fair and impartial and is not conducted properly. The objective of a fair trial is to ensure justice and to protect the victims by administering appropriate punishment to the accused. Both the accused and the prosecution should get a fair hearing in front of an unbiased judge who takes a participatory role in the trial.

CONCLUSION

In this case, the court emphasised the need to ensure a fair trial and various other issues such as the protection of the witnesses and the role that the witness plays in a criminal trial were also discussed at length. The courts must fulfill their duty to ensure that the trial is fair and is being properly conducted. A criminal trial must be just and impartial with no favour towards any party.