LexZAHIRA HABIBULLAH SHEIKH AND ANR . versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• '! \ ZAHIRA HABIBULLAH SHEIKH AND ANR . A v. ST A TE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. MARCH 8, 2006 [ARIJIT PASA YAT AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] B ~ Criminal Procedure Code, I973-Section 311-Trial Court acquitting accused since all witnesses turned hostile-Witness made statements after trial before various bodies contending that she was intimated, threatened and c coerced to turn hostile during trial-Direction by Supreme Court for re-trail in another State on basis of the statements by the witness-Witness thereafter giving press statements contending that she had not made such statements before various bodies and Supreme Court-Initiation of contempt of court proceedings against the witness before Supreme Court-Held, witnesses are the eyes and ears of justice-State has a definite role to play in protecting the D ~ witnesses-On facts, witness has committed contempt of court-Inquiry: initiated by Supreme Court revealed that the witness has accepted money for changing her stand-Witness sentenced to one year simple imprisonment-Supreme Court directing Income Tax authorities to initiate appropriate proceedings against the witness. E In a communal violence incident in the State of Gujarat, accused set lire to a shop in which 14 persons died. Appellant claimed to be an eye witness to the incident. A trial Court in Gujarat acquitted all the accused on the ground that many witnesses including the appellant turned hostile. _)._ The appellant made statements before National Human Rights F Commission and other bodies after the trial alleging that during the trial she was intimidated, threatened and coerced to depose falsely and turn hostile. The State filed an appeal before Gujarat High Court challenging the acquittal of the accused by the trial court. The State also filed miscellaneous petitions before High Court for retrial by the trial court. The High Court dismissed the appeal and miscellaneous petitions. This G Court, in appeal by the appellant, directed a re-trial by a trial court under ·-"' the jurisdiction of Bombay High Court on finding glaringly demonstrating subversion of justice delivery system and no congeal and conducive atmosphere still prevailing in the State of Gujarat for conducting f.resh 1081 H 1082 SCPREME COURT REPORTS (200612 S.C.R. A trial. ). When the re-trial was on before a trial court in Maharashtra, the appellant gave press statements disowning the statements made before this Court and before various bodies about intimidation and coercion for B turning hostile. A miscellaneous petition was filed against the appellant for committing contempt of court. This Court directed an inquiry by appointing Registrar General of' this Court as an lnquiry Officer. This Court also directed the appellant to file an affidavit before the Registrar 'l General indicating details of bank accounts, advances and investments in moveable and immoveable properties and its sources thereof of her and c her family members. The lnquiry Officer submitted an Inquiry report to this court finding, inter alia, that the appellant was induced by money for changing her stands; and that the appellant and her family members could not explain the assets and investments in their possession. D The appellant objected to the Inquiry Report contending that she was a puppet in the hands of another and had made such statements only ,.. at the instance of others; that the procedure adopted by the Inquiry Officer was not fair and transparent; that the Inquiry Officer did not give any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses; that the request for examining E the Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission was rejected without reasons; that the Inquiry Officer acted with some pre-conceived conclusions and his report was based on presumptions; that she has signed only the vakalatnama and not the affidavit in the appeal and hence, she is not responsible for the statements made in the affidavit; that she had F not approached this Court for fresh trial; and that she was not the only person who turned hostile and no action ha_d been taken against others. ,._ Disposing of the miscellaneous petition with directions, the Court HELD: 1.1. It is for the appellant to explain whether she was telling G the truth or making a false statement. Merely stating that she was acting as a puppet in the hands of another is not sufficient. A bare reading of the observations made in the Inquiry Report makes
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.