Hostile Witnesses (Victims) from the Family of Habibulla Shaikh
511. I shall now consider the
evidence of the other occurrence witnesses who had, all, turned hostile.
These are Zahira [P.W.41] – the first informant – and her brothers
Nafitulla [P.W.31], Nasibulla [P.W.30], her sister Saherabanu [P.W.35] and
her mother Saherunnisa [P.W.40].
512. Hostility is not uncommon in criminal courts. In
fact, jurists have recognised that there exists a problem of hostility of
witnesses which problem has assumed great proportion in recent years
posing a threat to administration of justice. However, I may observe that
the hostility of these witnesses in this case is rather unique. An
analysis of their evidence leaves no manner of doubt that they are
interested not only in denying the connection of the accused persons with
the alleged offences, but have tried their best to deny the happening of
the incident itself; and where it became impossible, to try to reduce the
enormity of the offences. Zahira’s evidence gives a clear impression that
she was keen on disputing one factor – viz. that she had made any
complaint to any authority, or publicly, about the improper conduct of
previous trial, or had asked for a retrial at any time.
513. Much discussion on the evidence of these
witnesses is not necessary for adjudication of the guilt or otherwise of
the accused persons. However, as these witnesses have attempted to make a
mockery of the whole system of administration of justice, the matter
cannot be ignored altogether and the discussion should not be curtailed.
These witnesses appear to have turned hostile at the instance of some
persons and tutored not with the limited object of ensuring the acquittal
of the accused, but for much broader objects. There was an attempt to show
through these witnesses that there was a conspiracy of a particular
community or of a group of people to make false allegations for getting an
order of retrial. All this is required to be exposed when the issues in
question have been put forth for consideration by this Court.
[1] NASIBULLA [P.W.30]
514. … … …
515. It is not in dispute that Nasibulla himself was
injured in the incident. On examination, Dr. Smt. Meena Robin [P.W.46]
found patient Nasibulla to be unconscious. He had a head injury. Three
I.Ws. on left occipital parietal region were noticed, as follows:
i) Size – 15cm X 2cm X scalp deep,
ii) Size – 10cm X 2cm X scalp deep,
iii) Size – 8cm X 2cm X scalp deep,
Nasibulla had burn injuries on both lower limbs.
516. Nasibulla does speak about the riots and also
admits that he sustained an injury on his head and also burn injuries on
his leg. He also states that the head injury and the burn injuries were
suffered by him on one and the same day; and that he was taken to S.S.G.
Hospital. He also states that the whereabouts of his maternal uncle
Kausarali, who was looking after the bakery business after the death of
Habibulla, could not be ascertained after the riots.
517. Interestingly, though Nasibulla speaks of the
riots having started at about 9.00 p.m., he states that he does not know
till what time they continued; and the reason which he gives for the same,
is that, after sustaining an injury on the head at about 11.00 p.m., he
had lost consciousness and what happened thereafter, he does not know.
Thus, according to him, he sustained the head injury while he was on
terrace. As shall be discussed later at an appropriate place, this part of
his evidence – viz. that he had sustained an injury on the head in the
night while he was on terrace and had lost consciousness thereafter, which
he regained only in the hospital – is false and cannot be accepted at all.
At this stage, it may only be noticed that this is a feeble attempt to
suppress the morning incident.
518. Though the witness has exhibited a reluctance to
give the information regarding the incident, Smt. Manjula Rao, the learned
Spl. P.P. has been able to get sufficient material on record through him
which confirms the happening of the incident in the night. Nasibulla does
speak of rioters setting fire to Lal Mohammad’s wakhar, then to
Aslam’s room and to the Best Bakery building. The Spl. P.P. has been able
to wrest evidence supporting the story of the rioters coming in big
number, they occupying the entire area surrounding their house, setting
fire, throwing stones and burning glass bottles over the terrace, etc.,
from him.
519. He claims not to know whether any persons known
to him were among the mob of rioters and the absence of this knowledge, he
attributes to smoke and darkness. He has volunteered to state, after
having spoken about stone throwing, that they [he and others] pulled the
mattresses over their heads so that the stones would not hit them. It is
interesting, however, that he still sustained an injury on head. He also
volunteered that it was dark and there was smoke. He was keen on
expressing at the earliest opportunity, the impossibility to see anything
and at any rate, to make it clear that he had not seen anything.
… … …
523. The cross-examination of Nasibulla shows that he
had been completely won over and was quick to admit everything that would
destroy the prosecution case. The attempt in the cross-examination was to
make him stick to the evidence which he gave in the Court at Vadodara,
which was obviously in favour of the accused. To the contention advanced
on behalf of the accused that the witnesses Taufel [P.W.26], Raees
[P.W.27], Shehzad [P.W.28] and Sailun [P.W.32] were actually not sitting
on the cot when the mob of rioters came, support was attempted to be
derived from Nasibulla but it has not been very successful. Nasibulla was
asked in the cross-examination whether it was correct that the servants
were, from the beginning only, on the terrace. Nasibulla replied that the
servants used to sleep on the terrace and further told to the Court that
they were not on the terrace from the beginning. Naturally,
on further questioning, Nasibulla realised what answer is required by the
defence and agreed to the suggestion that on that day also, they were on
the terrace, but added that they were ‘sleeping’ on the terrace.
Ultimately, the following precise question was required to be put to him,
which was precisely answered by him.
Ques.: When the mob came, the servants were already on the
terrace. Is it correct?
Ans.: Yes. They were on terrace.
This entire questioning and answering on this topic
clearly shows that Nasibulla changed his version on being aware of what is
required or expected of him by the cross-examiner and duly obliged him by
giving the required answer.
524. The collusion between the defence and Nasibulla
is obvious and can be pointed out inter alia from the following. A
question was asked to him in the cross-examination ‘whether he stated
in his evidence before the Court at Vadodara that the police had obtained
his signature on his statement’. Nasibulla stated that he did not
state so. The purpose of this question was not realised and therefore it
was thought rather curious. The object behind that is revealed to be, to
come out of what Nasibulla had stated before the Court at Vadodara. The
record of Nasibulla’s deposition in that Court shows that Nasibulla had
stated that ‘he had not stated who were in the incident with which
weapons and instruments they were armed and what they had done; and
that police had just obtained his signature.’ Though not much
turns on this, it exhibits clear collusion between the defence and this
witness. Ironically, Shri Adhik Shirodkar, the learned Senior Advocate,
who was very vehement in suggesting the witness to be audacious, in
addition to be a liar, whenever any witness supporting the prosecution
tried to deviate even a little from the record of the previous trial [and
though was willing to explain or speak about supposed inconsistency or
contradiction,] does not mind such a drastically opposite statement made
by Nasibulla. Rather, he invites such a statement, leaving aside his views
about the sternness with which such a witness – who implies the Court
record to be false – should be dealt with, as expressed by him during the
cross-examination of some other witnesses, and emphatically put forth
during arguments.
525. After the video cassette [Ex.283] was introduced
in evidence, Nasibulla was recalled and further examined by the learned
Spl. P.P. The C.D. [Ex.283/3] equivalent to the relevant part of the
cassette [Ex.283] was played over to him. Nasibulla has admitted the
shooting to be of his house at Hanuman Tekdi; and that it being in respect
of the fire that had been caught to their bakery. He has also admitted the
shooting to be of 2nd March.
526. His further examination by the learned Spl. P.P.
reveals that certain amounts have been credited to his and Zahira’s
account in Syndicate Bank. There seems to be no proper explanation of how
and from where these amounts were got deposited in the relevant bank
accounts.
527. Nasibulla’s evidence shows that he is
hostile, that he has been tutored and is obviously lying on several
material aspects.
[2] NAFITULLA [P.W.31]
528. Nafitulla [P.W.31], though hostile, undoubtedly
and admittedly sustained injuries in the incident and was required to be
admitted into hospital. The injuries sustained by him have already been
mentioned earlier.
529. Nafitulla does speak about the riots that took
place on 01/03/2002, and also states that the riots took place in the
entire State of Gujarat; and that they took place because of the incident
of train burning at Godhra. He speaks of the bakery of his father and
their house situated at Hanuman Tekdi. He also gives the details of the
persons working in the bakery as Sailun, Shehzad, Taufel, Raees, Prakash,
Baliram, and Rajesh, etc. He speaks of the house of Aslam being situated
by the side of his house. Nafitulla also states that Kausarmama was
also living in their house when the riots started. What he disputes is the
presence of Yasmin.
530. Nafitulla states that the bakery was burnt on
01/03/2002, by a mob of about 1,000 people. He also states that while he
and other members of his family, together with the servants, were on the
terrace, one of his sisters – Sabira – was on the first floor in one of
the rooms along with members of Aslam’s family.
531. The hostility of Nafitulla is manifest and
visible from the fact that though he says that Sabira died in riots, he is
not ready to say that she was burnt to death. To a question, ‘how did
she die’ he gives an evasive answer to the effect that ‘those
people had closed the door from the inside; and that therefore he did not
know what had happened thereafter’.
532. Nafitulla states that they all were hiding on the
terrace. Nafitulla states that he was admitted into the hospital, but it
is remarkable that without any questioning, he volunteers ‘"but how
I went there, I do not know." [Pages 587-588 of Notes of
Evidence]. This anxiety seems to be for the purpose of avoiding disclosure
of the incident that took place in the morning, or avoid questions which
would be put regarding that.
533. Nafitulla states that he was admitted in the
hospital on the next day – i.e. on 02/03/2002 – and that he was admitted
therein for about 8 days. Nafitulla admits having sustained injuries on
his head and neck. He also claimed to be not aware of the whereabouts of
Kausarmama.
534. Interestingly, after answering in reply to a
question, that they had gone to the terrace at 9.00 p.m. Nafitulla
volunteers "there was no light and there was much smoke".
This shows that Nafitulla, like Nasibulla, had been tutored to say certain
things which were expected to come up, in the examination-in-chief, but
probably having been aware of the hostility of the witnesses, the learned
Spl. P.P. adopted a different line of questioning whereby such straight
questions were not forthcoming. It is apparent that therefore, Nafitulla
decided to volunteer to state as was tutored or as, at any rate, had been
already decided by him to state.
535. Nafitulla also adopts the theory of losing
consciousness on the terrace itself, on being hurt by the stones and
bottles that were being thrown. As discussed earlier while discussing with
evidence of Nasibulla, there exists an anxiety on the part of these
witnesses to claim that they lost consciousness in the night itself and
therefore, did not know what happened thereafter, as they regained
consciousness only in the hospital. This is obviously because of the
desire to avoid speaking about or being questioned, regarding morning
incident. Both Nafitulla and Nasibulla are undoubtedly lying about their
having lost consciousness in the night on the terrace itself and about the
injuries that were sustained by them being caused to them in the night
itself. It is clear that, in that case, they could not have got down from
the terrace on their own…
536. Nafitulla has given the reason for his going to
Vadodara after the commencement of the retrial as the threats given to
them by Teesta’s Raees Khan and other ‘Gundas’. The theory
of the threats given by Smt. Teesta Setalvad and ‘her Gundas’
shall be discussed later, to show how improper and unbelievable the story
of these witnesses is. At this stage, what needs to be observed is that
Nafitulla is anxious to disclose what were the threats and therefore
without asking, volunteers to say ‘that the threats were to the
effect that false statement will have to be made; and that it was a matter
of the community’.
537. The evidence of Nafitulla and Zahira reveals that
these witnesses are assisted by one ‘Jan Adhikar Samiti’ which is
said to be consisting of only one person – viz. Tushar Vyas – who is an
Advocate. At any rate, nobody else from such Samiti is known to
either Nafitulla or Zahira. Nafitulla states that the expenses of the
Press Conference which was held by Zahira after secretly going to Vadodara
from Mira Road-Bhayander [which was after the commencement of this trial]
were born by ‘Jan Adhikar Samiti’. The services of Advocate Atul
Mistry also were provided by ‘Jan Adhikar Samiti’ only. The role of
‘Jan Adhikar Samiti’ and Advocate Atul Mistry can be discussed more
conveniently while discussing Zahira’s evidence.
538. Nafitulla had appeared before the Court after the
commencement of the retrial. He was lodged at the ‘Visava Guest House’
where arrangements had been made for the stay of the witnesses in this
case. However, he disappeared from the ‘Visava Guest House’ without
informing anyone and with Zahira and others went to Vadodara. He left his
second wife – Heena @ Kailash – and his child at the Guest House itself.
Thereafter, a press conference came to be held by Zahira at Vadodara
which, as aforesaid, was financed by ‘Jan Adhikar Samiti’. In the
Press Conference, Zahira made statements contrary to what she had or
supposed to have stated in the Supreme Court of India. Nafitulla has
admitted that he was aware of the fact that a retrial of the ‘Best Bakery
Case’ to be held in Maharashtra, was ordered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India; and that he had come to know before going to Vadodara that the
retrial had been started. The learned Spl. P.P. has specifically
questioned Nafitulla as to what he stated before the television could have
been stated by him before the Court, and Nafitulla has agreed that he
could do so.
539. Nafitulla was unable to explain the injury on his
neck and has stated that it must have been suffered by him, on account of
bottles, which were being thrown on the terrace from below on 01/03/2002.
He claims that the said injury was caused to him after he had lost
consciousness; and that therefore, he could not say in what manner and by
which weapon or object the injury on his neck was caused.
540. Nafitulla, however, admits that a mob of about
1,000 to 1,200 persons had come to the ‘Best Bakery building on 01/03/2002
at about 9.00 p.m.; and that the persons in the mob were shouting ‘jalao’,
‘jalao’ and ‘bakery jalao’.
541. Nafitulla further admits that the mob surrounded
their house; and that they burnt the house and bakery. Interestingly, when
asked as to whether the mob consisted of certain persons named in the
question, Nafitulla answered in the negative. It is worth reproducing the
question and answer here:
Ques.: Did it happen that among the mob that had assembled
there, social worker Thakkar from your zopadpatti area, Jayanti tea
vendor, Jayanti’s nephew – Mahesh –, Munno and Pratap, Jayanti’s son,
Mahesh’s friend – Kiran –, and Lalo, as well as Painter – residing in
front of Sindhi’s shop –, and Jitu – who resides opposite your lane –,
were playing a major role and leading the mob?
Ans.: No. They were not there.
542. Now, this negative answer, suggests two things –
first that these persons were known to him and second, that he could
see the persons in the mob. A question as to whether he knew those persons
was therefore asked to Nafitulla by the Court when Nafitulla replied that
‘he did not know any of these persons whose names were mentioned in the
question’ and on further questioning replied that what he wanted to
say was that ‘he did not know any of those persons and not that they
were not in the mob’.
… … …
544. … Unfortunately, even if the Court comes to the
conclusion that the version of Nafitulla and Nasibulla as appearing in
the statements recorded during investigation is true, and their version
before the Court is false, no use of the version as appearing in the
statements recorded during investigation can be made by way of evidence.
Apart from the prohibition imposed by Section 162 of the Code, it is
elementary that pre-trial statements cannot constitute evidence, save and
except those made admissible by some provisions in the Evidence Act. It is
only the statements made by the witnesses before the Court that are
evidence and the previous version of a witness, even if duly proved, can
be used only for the purpose of corroborating or contradicting a witness
with regard to his testimony in the Court. Since these statements have
been recorded during investigation, keeping in mind the prohibition
imposed by Section 162 of the Code, they can be used only for
contradicting him which has been done. The version of Nafitulla as found
in those statements even though duly proved, cannot be made use of as
evidence. Ironically, had Nafitulla died on account of injuries
sustained by him, the statements of Nafitulla would have been admissible
in evidence as his dying declaration. The same would be true with
respect to the contradictory version of Nasibulla also. Both of them had
sustained injuries which endangered their life and in the event of their
death, certain statements made by them before the police would have been
substantive evidence and could be acted upon. Though the Court is
empowered and competent to come to the conclusion that version of
Nafitulla and Nasibulla as given by them before the police represents a
rather accurate, though not full picture of the happenings, no use of
those statements as and by way of evidence can be made, because Nafitulla
and Nasibulla both survived to turn hostile and disown their own
statements.
545. That Nafitulla had been fully won over and was
out to destroy the prosecution case, is clear from many facets of his
testimony, one of which can be given here by way of an example. Nafitulla
stated during his examination-in-chief that in this case F.I.R. was lodged
by Zahira. He further stated that he learnt about it after about one and
half months from the date on which she had lodged it, though he did not
come to know what was written in the F.I.R. Nafitulla further confirmed
these aspects. In further questioning he states that he had a talk with
Zahira in which she told him that she had lodged the F.I.R., in this case.
As shall be discussed later, it has been attempted to project that no
F.I.R. had been lodged at all by Zahira and no report had been made at
all, by her. In order to show that the order for retrial was fraudulently
secured, it was essential to make a claim that Zahira had not lodged any ‘F.I.R.’
at all; and that the whole case was a creation of some interested
elements. When this requirement of the defence was realised by Nafitulla,
he tried to do what could be done maximum, to resile from the statement to
the effect Zahira having lodged the F.I.R. In the cross-examination, he
stated that he did not know what is ‘F.I.R’; and that he did not know the
meaning of this term. This cannot, at all, be believed in view of his
previous evidence. If he did not know what is ‘F.I.R.’, he would have
never said that in this case ‘F.I.R.’ was lodged by Zahira, that he did
not know what was written in the ‘F.I.R.’, that he learnt about Zahira
having lodged it after one and half months, etc.
546. Though Nafitulla was fully hostile, he was,
still, cross-examined at length, by the Advocates for the accused, in an
attempt to discredit the testimony of the supporting witnesses on certain
points such as place where the supporting eyewitnesses were sitting, when
the rioters came, etc. The reliable testimony of the supporting witnesses
cannot be discredited by answers obtained from a hostile witness who is
utterly unworthy of credit and a positive liar; and that too, by putting
him leading questions. As shall be discussed later, the claim of there
being an ‘improvement’ as to the place of sitting, as made, has
failed.
547. It has been elicited from Nafitulla by putting
leading questions to him in the cross-examination that when he and others
were hiding themselves on terrace there was thick smoke, no light and
nothing could be seen. It is further got confirmed from him that due to
smoke and darkness, who were setting fire to the bakery below, could not
be seen by him; and that it was so stated by him before the Court at
Vadodara. No importance to such statements of a patently hostile witness
can be given and certainly not to discredit the evidence of other
witnesses who are found to be trustworthy. Even otherwise, the theory
itself is absurd and in the zeal to get admissions from Nafitulla, it has
been lost sight of that the question of smoke would arise after fire and
therefore, who were setting fire to the bakery would not be impossible to
see on account of the smoke which would not be there at that time.
548. Several false admissions from Nafitulla such as
he did not know how the injury on his neck below left ear was caused; and
that he had not seen the persons who set the fire and did other acts; and
that he had not seen anyone taking away the articles in their bakery; and
that he had not seen anyone setting fire to the vehicles have been
obtained on behalf of the accused. All these statements are sought to be
confirmed and corroborated by his admission of having stated so in the
previous trial also. These admissions are contrary to be probabilities of
the case, apart from being totally in conflict with the weight of evidence
on record. It is one thing to say that he had not seen any person known
to him or that he could not identify any of the persons who set fire or
took away the articles, etc., but it is quite another to say that he had
not seen anybody at all, in spite of having seen the mob.
549. Nafitulla has filed a complaint against Madhu
Shrivastav on 27/09/2003. According to him, he was falsely made to make
that complaint by Mohammad Vora, Munna Malik and Arif Malik. That
complaint has nothing to do with the involvement or otherwise of the
accused in the present case or more particularly with the offences in
question. Nafitulla not having supported the prosecution in this case,
whether the complaint lodged by him against Madhu Shrivastav was false or
not would not be relevant and the aspects, whether it was likely to be
true or not, whether it had not been written by him, would not be relevant
at all. The relevancy thereof would have arisen, had Nafitulla
supported the prosecution case here. In that case, he would have been
challenged with reference to his claim in the nature of explanation of why
he gave false evidence in the previous trial.
550. The subject of the organisation of Smt. Teesta
Setalvad spending money on Nafitulla and his family members – i.e. towards
their ration, etc. – was taken in the cross-examination and it was got
clarified from the Nafitulla that Teesta Setalvad and Raees Khan and other
‘Gundas’ used to say that false statements will have to be
made in the Court at Mumbai.
551. The following questions and answers are worth
reproducing before they are commented upon.
Ques.: Did they also tell you what false statements you
will have to make before the Court in Mumbai?
Ans.: They said that I will have to make false statements
as would be tutored by them.
Ques.: They also told you that you will have to identify
the accused persons in the Court, as would be told by them to you. Is it
correct?
Ans.: Yes.
Ques.: In what manner, they had said, you will have to
identify the accused persons?
Ans.: They said that they would show the photographs of
the accused persons to me.
552. A story offering an elaborate explanation as to
how and in what manner false allegations of previous trial having been
unfair were made, how the Supreme Court of India was misled, how Zahira
was deceived or forced to make false statements, how, after a retrial was
ordered, she was being threatened to make false statements and how all
this was the act of the N.G.O. – Citizens for Justice and Peace –
and Smt. Teesta Setalvad, the Secretary of the said organisation; was
attempted to be developed and emphasised by the defence as a possible and
plausible explanation of the unbelievable happenings. It was emphasised
that the evidence needs to be appreciated in the context of these facts.
These aspects can be conveniently and more effectively dealt with after
discussing Zahira’s evidence. At this stage, and in the light of the
questions and answers reproduced above, it may only be observed that
Nafitulla has been completely won over, not only with the object that the
charge against the accused should not be proved, but with the object of
suggesting a great conspiracy of a particular community to falsely use the
machinery for administration of justice. Interestingly, the answers do
not reveal that any tutoring was actually done as to what
false statement Nafitulla was supposed to make. The answer to the first
question reproduced above shows that actually nothing was tutored to
Nafitulla and the stage of tutoring was yet to come. The next question
reproduced above is rather interesting and one cannot help observing that
it has been a marked feature of the cross-examination to confront only a
favourable witness with the aspects desired to be brought on record. In
order to offer an explanation which was apparently thought necessary by
the learned Advocates for the accused as to how supporting witnesses who
had been earlier examined had identified the accused persons in the Court,
the story of Smt. Teesta Setalvad and others telling Nafitulla that they
would show the photographs of the accused persons to him, has been
introduced. There is no wonder that Nafitulla who was too ready to oblige
the defence has accepted this suggestion, but what is curious is that
the witnesses who have identified the accused persons – though have been
cross-examined with respect to the question of tutoring – have not been
suggested of being told that they would be shown photographs of the
accused persons or being actually shown the photographs, etc. It is
indeed ironical that Nafitulla who does not identify anyone has been asked
to ‘expose’ the attempts made to make him identify the accused persons
falsely, but those who have identified the accused persons actually, have
not been asked about the photographs of the accused persons shown to them.
The powerful weapon for discovery of truth – the cross examination – is
used against those whose evidence was not adverse to the accused at all,
but no use of this weapon was made to elicit from the supporting
witnesses, the alleged fact of photographs of the accused having been
shown to them. No value therefore, to such statement of Nafitulla can be
given. Moreover, even according to Nafitulla, no photographs of the
accused persons were actually shown to him. All that he says is that Smt.
Teesta Setalvad and others had all said that the photographs ‘would be
shown’ to him.
553. The cross-examination of Nafitulla by Shri
Jambaulikar is rather interesting and all that the defence wanted was
systematically put to him one by one and Nafitulla went on admitting all
that was so put, as correct. Thus, he admitted that the lights in the
house were switched off, the door of the room on the first floor was
closed from inside, that no outsider was in a position to enter inside,
that on the road in front of bakery there was no electricity, no lights;
and that there was complete darkness, etc. He accepted as correct the
suggestions that there was no light either on the left side or rear side
of the Best Bakery or that there is no electricity pole in that area, that
there was total darkness in that area, that it was not possible due to the
darkness to see who was or were there, etc. etc. It was put to him that
when the mob of rioters came the servants were not sitting on a cot
outside the bakery, which Nafitulla readily accepted. No reliance can be
placed on these admissions of Nafitulla as they are patently false, as can
be judged from the other evidence on record. That Nafitulla is totally
unworthy of credit, has lied on several material points and has been
clearly won over to depose against the prosecution is well established.
These statements of Nafitulla intended to discredit the version of the
supporting witnesses have no value whatsoever, in my opinion.
554. What is remarkable is that in the
cross-examination, minute details – not based on any information disclosed
from the record or not supposed to be known to the accused – have been put
to Nafitulla. There is a clear indication of collusion between the accused
or somebody interested in affecting the prosecution case on one hand and
Nafitulla and the other hostile witnesses on the other hand.
555. Mohammed Vora, Munna Malik and Arif Malik are
named by Nafitulla as the ‘persons from his community’
who used to visit him in the hospital and tell him that in order to get
compensation, he should do what they would be telling him to do. By this
statement Nafitulla has paved a way for explaining his future conduct in
making allegations against the accused.
556. Nafitulla was recalled for further examination by
the learned Spl. P.P. after the cassette [Ex.389/A] containing the record
of statements made by Nafitulla during his interview taken on 18/04/2002,
by Pankaj Shankar [P.W.73], was tendered in evidence. Nafitulla was
confronted with the relevant part of the interview. I shall consider the
contentions and objections raised with respect to the testimony of Pankaj
Shankar and as to the date on which the Nafitulla is said to have made the
statements separately. It is however, a fact that when confronted with
the record of his interview Nafitulla does admit that this is a record of
his interview; and does admit having said, what is heard as being said by
him. The only explanation of his is that he was saying what was
tutored to him. He also agrees that the statements that were made by him
in the said interview related to the Best Bakery incident. He admits
having made various statements implicating the accused during the
interview, but states that it is because Teesta had tutored him, to say
so. Each and every statement that was put to him he admits having been
made by him, but only states that it was said by him as tutored by Teesta
and others. All this cannot be accepted if the date of the said interview
as ’18/04/2002', as given by Pankaj Shankar, is accepted. I wish to
discuss this aspect separately while dealing with the evidence of Pankaj
Shankar, as it is relevant from the point of view of and in the context of
the evidence of other hostile witnesses – including Zahira – also.
[3] SAHERABANU [P.W.35]
557. The next hostile witness is Smt. Saherabanu
Habibulla Shaikh [P.W.35], sister of Zahira Shaikh [P.W.41]. She is also
an occurrence witness and she is also extremely hostile. Without wasting
much time on the discussion of her evidence, the extent of her hostility
may be illustrated by giving a few examples.
A] That Sabira – Saherabanu’s and Zahira’s sister –
died in the riots; and that she was burnt in the fire that was set by the
rioters to the Best Bakery house, is not in dispute at all. In fact, such
an admission does not even remotely implicate the accused or connect any
of them with the alleged offences. In spite of this, what is the attitude
of Sahera [P.W.35] on this can be best illustrated by the following
questions and answers, from the notes of her evidence.
Ques.: How did Sabira die?
Ans.: That I do not know.
Ques.: When did she die?
Ans.: When we were residing at Hanuman Tekdi.
Ques.: Do you know what had happened to her?
Ans.: I do not know. [Pg.799 of Notes of Evidence].
This speaks for itself.
558. After some further questioning, Sahera was
further questioned on this subject and the notes of her evidence that are
being reproduced below make interesting reading.
Ques.: How do you know that Sabira has died?
[Court Note: Witness takes some time and then
states, "I do not remember." She is explained as to what is the question
and the question is repeated again].
Ans.: When my father was alive, we all were staying together.
[The same question is repeated again ].
Ans.: Sabira had not died. She was studying in school.
[The same question is repeated again].
Ans.: Sabira’s death occurred in the riots that had taken
place.
B] The witness displayed such an attitude that to
bring her to the point, questions were, on certain occasions, required to
be put to her by the Court itself. The evidence reproduced above clearly
indicates that the witness was avoiding, as far as possible, to say even
that Sabira’s death occurred in the riots. It is only after repeated
efforts and after cornering her in that regard, she had to admit that
Sabira’s death occurred in the riots that had taken place. Though Sahera
has denied it when asked by the Court, it is obvious that she did not even
want to refer to the riots to say that Sabira died in the riots and this
speaks volumes of the frame of mind of this witness.
559. Instead of saying that the wakhar opposite
their house was set on fire, when questioned as to what happened after the
shouts and noise were heard, Sahera used the expression as ‘wakhar
opposite their house was burning’. Further, instead of saying that
fire was set to the wood that had been kept at the ground floor of their
building, she says ‘the wood was burnt’.
C] When Sahera stated that she had come for telling
the truth in connection with the ‘bakery case’, she was asked a question
by the Court as to ‘what was the bakery case about?’ The answer
given by her is very interesting and worth reproducing below.
‘Regarding the damage caused; the wood was burnt, other
articles were burnt, vehicles were burnt.’
Now, there is no dispute that in the incident of Best
Bakery, which the witness is referring to as ‘bakery case’, several
persons died, but Sahera has scrupulously avoided saying this. She poses
as if the whole case is about the damage to the property and not about the
loss of several lives.
560. Interestingly, Sahera had admitted many more
things in the previous trial than in the present trial. Here, she said
that she did not know the names of any of the workers working in the
bakery and whether any relative of her was working therein. When
questioned, after being declared as hostile, she denied having given names
of any servants in the Court at Vadodara. She also denied having given
names of neighbours in the Court during the first trial, when she was
questioned in that regard in view of her statement before this Court that
she did not know their names. She was confronted with the relevant
portions – i.e. portions marked ‘JJJ’, ‘KKK’ and ‘MMM’ – appearing in her
original deposition [X-36 for identification] in the Court at Vadodara but
in spite of such confrontation, she denied having said so. The denial of
Sahera in that regard cannot be accepted, firstly, because the record of
the Court cannot be lightly disbelieved and secondly, because the facts
which she denies as having stated before that Court, are such that
ordinarily, she was expected to know those facts. Not to know the names of
the persons working in their bakery, or not to know the names of the
neighbours, would be rather extraordinary and cannot be believed.
561. The witness is so discrepant and inconsistent
that that she is telling lies, or at any rate not telling the truth, is
apparent. In fact, there are discrepancies on every aspect about which she
has spoken, or was made to speak. A number of questions were put to her by
Smt. Manjula Rao, the learned Spl. P.P., to show that her claim of not
having made any grievance about the previous trial, or for that matter, of
not having said to the police about the relevant incident at all, was
false. Much examination of this witness was directed towards establishing
that her claims of not having sought any retrial were false. These aspects
are collateral aspects and as such, I do not propose to discuss the
evidence in that regard in depth. What needs to be observed in brief,
as in the case of other hostile witnesses, is that there is a reluctance
to state about the incident itself, and not merely regarding the
involvement or otherwise of the accused persons. There is an express
and clear desire not to let the details of the incident made known, to
project it as an incident in which damage to the property was caused,
rather than an incident in which several lives were lost. Unfortunately
for this witness, and also for the other hostile witnesses, they had taken
several steps after the previous trial had ended in acquittal, by
approaching various authorities and by making grievances at various
levels. Obviously, Sahera, as also the others, required explanation of
their actions when they made a claim before this Court as if nothing had
happened and out of a blue moon, they are suddenly again called to give
evidence in this Court. The stories advanced by Sahera, similar to the
stories advanced by the other hostile witnesses, are inherently
improbable, weak and contrary to reason. They are to be rejected
forthwith.
562. Sahera [P.W.35] has tried to avoid stating about
the injuries sustained by her brothers also supposedly while they were on
the terrace. Nafitulla and Nasibulla have stated that both of them lost
consciousness in the night itself while they were on the terrace and at
that time, they had sustained injuries by the objects that were thrown on
the terrace by the rioters. Sahera however does not know whether any of
them had sustained any injury. She has found out a convenient way of
avoiding any answer on several material aspects by saying that she was
frightened; and that she was ‘bebhaan’, or in some cases, that she
does not remember…
… … …
[4] SAHERUNNISA [P.W.40]
564. The next hostile witness Smt. Saherunnisa
Habibulla Shaikh [P.W.40], it may be recalled, is the mother of Zahira
[P.W.41]. During the investigation, her three statements were recorded –
first on 04/03/2002 [X-45 for identification], second on 10/03/2002 [X-54
for identification] and the third on 12/03/2002 [X-59 for identification].
While the first two statements were recorded by PI Baria [P.W.72], the
third one was recorded by PI Kanani [P.W.74].
565. ... Saherunnisa, like other hostile witnesses,
has proved to be a liar of the highest degree. She also exhibits an
anxiety to suppress, or at least reduce, the severity of the incident. She
also is unwilling to speak about the incident itself. It has taken a great
deal of trouble for Smt. Manjula Rao, the learned Spl. P.P., to get
elicited from this witness primary and undisputed facts such as the riots
having taken place, the rioters setting on fire the Best Bakery building
and other buildings, several persons dying in the fire, etc. She pretended
not to know how her house had caught fire. She refuses to admit that the
others, apart from Sabira, died because of burns in her house and claims
that they died in their house which was adjacent to Saherunnisa’s house –
i.e. Best Bakery building. She denies the presence of her mother at the
time of the incident. She, however, does speak of rioters giving and
shouting as ‘jalao, maro, kato’, etc. Though Saherunnisa is hostile
and determined not to support the prosecution, she has disclosed certain
facts during her evidence which support the prosecution case in certain
respects. The signs of tutoring were however very apparent. She exhibited
hatred and bias for Smt. Teesta Setalvad.
566. In spite of happening of such a serious communal
incident in which her house and bakery were burnt, the witness volunteered
to state during her evidence as ‘we would now carry on our business
from there’. The learned Spl. P.P. is right in contending, in my
opinion, that this showed that already there had been some sort of an
understanding between her and the persons at whose instance she and other
witnesses have turned hostile. The learned Spl. P.P.’s contention that
apparently the witness had received some assurance in that regard is quite
acceptable. That she was tutored and asked to say all sorts of bad things
about Smt. Teesta Setalvad and her conduct with Zahira, is apparent. She
has volunteered to state in her deposition, suggesting that Smt. Teesta
Setalvad had kept Zahira in captivity; and that she escaped from her place
and came to Saherunnisa crying; and that she had been badly treated by Smt.
Teesta Setalvad, etc. This is falsified by the evidence of Zahira who has
said about Smt. Teesta Setalvad having looked after her well.
567. Saherunnisa’s evidence also reveals several
shocking things about the role of ‘Jan Adhikar Samiti’ in the
matter, the nature of the financial assistance given by them to
Saherunnisa and others, the role played by Advocate Atul Mistry and his
conduct, which shall be discussed later.
568. Smt. Rao, the learned Spl. P.P., had drawn my
attention to some part of the evidence of this witness and contended that
this has brought out the truth of the matter. It is contended by Smt. Rao
that why the witnesses were turning hostile and what were the facts could
easily be grasped if this evidence of Saherunnisa [P.W.40] is studied. It
is also pointed out by Smt. Rao that this particular evidence has not been
challenged at all on behalf of the accused. I find great force in the
submissions of Smt. Rao in this regard. The relevant evidence therefore
needs to be dealt with and discussed in a somewhat detailed manner.
569. Saherunnisa, as is the feature of her evidence,
criticised one Mohammad Vora and stated about his having forced (her) to
say what was tutored by him before a representative of channel ‘Aaj Tak’.
Apparently, all these witnesses have found no other way of explaining the
statements made by them previously of which electronic record was
available in visual and electronic form. Since some of the ‘tutored
statements’ were made by them before they had met Smt. Teesta Setalvad,
the original zeal and enthusiasm for putting the entire blame of the so
called ‘conspiracy’ on Smt. Teesta Setalvad was given up, but keeping that
aside, what is important is what Saherunnisa said on this topic. According
to her, Mohammad Vora started teaching her as to what was to be said
before the representative of the channel; and that he made a gesture which
she showed to the Court and which was as indicative of ‘cutting the
neck’. Thereafter, Saherunnisa volunteered to make a statement as
follows:
"zabaan palte na, uske baare mein bol raha tha." (the
changed testimony, that’s what I was talking about) [Pg.1063 of Notes of
Evidence].
Saherunnisa then told him that she had no strength for
fighting:
"mere me ladne ki taaqat nahin hai, mere koi aage peeche
nahin hai, mereko case mein matlab nahin hai."
[Pg.1063 of Notes of Evidence].
Her grievance is that Mohammad Vora still insisted that
she would have to fight; and that she would have to fight for the
community. When she was questioned by Smt. Rao, Saherunnissa has admitted
that her family had changed the testimony. She also very clearly admitted
that she was talking about ‘changing the testimony’ in the Court at
Vadodara. A question was asked, thereafter, to Saherunnisa by the Court
and it would be most appropriate to reproduce the question and answer
here.
Ques.: That means you have changed your testimony in the
Vadodara Court [Matlab Vadodara Court mein aapne apni zabaani palti
thi]?
Ans.: What else could be done [Mere aage peechhe koi
nahin tha. Mera aadmi nahin tha, ladki nahin thi. Jab kamaanewala nahin
tha, to kya case karen, kis par case Karen]?
Saherunnisa, of course, did not accept the suggestion of
the learned Spl. P.P. which followed this question and answer, to the
effect that she changed her testimony out of ‘fear’. However, she
voluntarily addressed to the Court as follows.
"Judgesahab, jab wahin rahena tha to dushmani kya leni
kisi se?"
It was got verified by the learned Spl. P.P. as to with
whom she did not want enmity, to which a remarkable answer, as follows,
was given by Saherunnissa.
"I did not want enmity with anyone; neither with
‘Gujaratwalas’ nor with ‘Mumbaiwalas."
570. This is significant. It is clear that Saherunnisa
admits as ‘zabaan palte’. Since she speaks about ‘changing the
testimony’ in the Court at Vadodara, it can only mean that earlier what
was intended to be stated, was changed. There is no doubt about the
meaning of this phrase ‘zabaan palte’. This throws light on all
the relevant aspects of the matter. Not only that she maintains that
she did change the testimony, but also gives a plausible explanation for
the same which is reflected in the question and answer reproduced above.
It is also significant, as reflected from the last answer reproduced
above, as to how the matter is perceived by Saherunnissa. It is not
perceived as an ordinary criminal case where the State is interested in
prosecuting and proving the guilt of the accused and the accused are
interested in showing that there is no evidence to support the allegation
levelled against them. Saherunnisa views the case as a fight
between two groups. Obviously, she is referring to those who are
interested in showing that nothing had happened, that there was nothing
wrong with the previous trial; and that some mischievous elements are
making a false claim of an unfair trial, improper investigation, witnesses
being threatened, etc., as one group and to those who are interested in
showing how unfair the trial was, how insecure the minorities were, how
the investigating agency had been partial and had displayed partisan
attitude, etc, as the other. Saherunnisa also admits that after the riots,
she and her family members were running ‘here and there’ out of
fear; and that the fear was caused on account of the riots that had taken
place and because what had happened during the riots.
571. In my opinion, this reflects the truth of the
matter. This throws light on the attitude of these hostile witnesses.
It nevertheless makes it clear that they did initially complain about the
incident; and that there is no substance in their claim that they had not
made any complaint. It is clear that their claim that whatever allegations
were made by them, were so made on being tutored, etc., is false.
572. After the video cassette [Ex.283] was tendered in
evidence, Saherunnisa was recalled at the instance of Smt. Manjula Rao,
the learned Spl. P.P., for further examination. After being confronted
with the relevant part of the video cassette [Ex.283], as contained in the
C.D. [Ex.283/3], Saherunnisa was most evasive but it could no more be
suppressed by her that the video cassette [Ex.283] did relate to the
shooting of the place of offences, done on the next day morning when the
police came there.
573. Saherunnisa [P.W.40] had earlier stated that on
the next day and after the arrival of the police, she had got down from
the terrace by the cement staircase inside the building. After having seen
the relevant part of the video cassette [Ex.283], she said that she got
down from the ladder which was behind; and that she and others were made
to get down from there. Undoubtedly, she does add that the ladder had been
brought by the police, which cannot at all be accepted. The police had no
reason to falsely suppress the fact of having brought a ladder. In any
case, this is because viewing the relevant part of the video cassette
[Ex.283] made Saherunnisa realise that when so much fire had been caught,
it was not possible to come down by the cement staircase inside the
building.
[5] ZAHIRA SHAIKH [P.W.41]
574. The last and most important among the hostile
witnesses is Zahira Shaikh [P.W.41] – the first informant. It is she, on
the basis of whose grievances, or at least supposed grievances, that the
retrial was ordered. That Zahira should turn hostile again during this
retrial is indeed shocking in as much as Zahira had given several press
statements, had approached various authorities, had filed a petition in
the Supreme Court of India, filed certain affidavits before the statutory
authorities after the incident and even after the trial ended in
acquittal, raising several grievances against investigation and the
machinery for administration of justice. In spite of that, she did show
the courage of turning hostile. Naturally, she was confronted with the
records of her previous statements contrary to what she deposed before
this Court, and had therefore to give certain explanations regarding
having made those statements, as shall be discussed at an appropriate
place.
575. Zahira [P.W.41], when caught in such an awkward
situation, initially attempted to deny having made the previous
conflicting and contradictory statements, but when confronted with some
record of that and when it would be thought of as impossible to deny
having made the statements, attempted to attribute it to the tutoring and
threats given by Smt. Teesta Setalvad and others. Unfortunately, even this
has not helped always, as some of the statements related to the period
prior to Zahira coming in contact with Smt. Teesta Setalvad. Zahira, in
such situations, had to find out different names of different persons as
the persons who had tutored her to say those previous conflicting
statements.
576. Though the evidential value of Zahira’s evidence
in the matter of adjudication of the guilt or innocence of the accused
would be very limited in this case, her evidence, nevertheless, is
required to be discussed in some depth. It is because the situation
that has been created by Zahira amounts to making a mockery of the system
of the administration of justice. It is my opinion, after going through
the entire evidence of Zahira [P.W.41], Saherunnisa [P.W.40] and other
hostile witnesses, that they have fallen in the hands of such people who
have made them speak lies, not only with respect to the involvement or
otherwise of the accused persons, but with the object of indicating that
there was nothing wrong in previous trial; that they never thought of
making any prayer for retrial; and that the order of retrial had been
falsely obtained by Smt. Teesta Setalvad and her organisation.
Repeated and emphatic claims were made by Shri Shirodkar, the learned
Senior Advocate, that the accused would prove that a blunder had been
committed by the Supreme Court of India, in ordering the retrial.
577. Before proceeding to discuss the evidence of
Zahira further, it may be noticed that in spite of such a tremendous
hostility, ultimately, Zahira has been made to admit the happenings of the
incident almost in the same manner in which the prosecution has alleged it
having taken place. Barring the connection of the accused with the alleged
offences, Zahira has admitted almost every part of the prosecution case.
578. … Zahira also admits that the riots took place on
01/03/2002; and that stone throwing and bottle throwing was going on
throughout the night. Zahira does state about the stones being thrown on
the terrace from all four sides, about the ‘wakhar’ in front of
their house being burnt, the wood kept in the downstairs portion in their
house having caught fire, etc. She also admits that she got down from the
terrace in the morning; and that it was after the police and fire brigade
had come, who, according to her, made her – and others also – to get down.
579. It can at once be seen that there is not much
distinction between Zahira’s version of the incident and of the supporting
witnesses or the prosecution case as revealed by the police report and
accompanying documents. The incident of riots did take place. Stone
throwing, bottle throwing, fire taking place, Best Bakery building being
set on fire, the inmates and victims of the incident being rescued in the
morning, indicative of the fact that the riots went on till then and till
the arrival of the police, are facts which have not been – or rather
could not be – disputed by Zahira and even by other hostile witnesses
for that matter. What is significant is that there is a methodical
insistence to stick to the version of the injured having been brought down
on the next day morning by the fire brigade. As already observed,
while discussing the evidence of other witnesses there is a concerted
effort, obviously as a result of tutoring, to hide or suppress the morning
incident.
580. According to Zahira, her brothers were injured in
the night itself, because of throwing of the bottles, etc., and even the
servants had been injured in the night itself. This is consistent with the
stand that all of them came down from the terrace only after the police
and fire brigade came. Fortunately, no story of an attack by some persons
after the police had already arrived on the scene and had rescued these
persons is devised. The injuries sustained by Nafitulla [P.W.31] and
Nasibulla [P.W.30] and the other injured witnesses however, cannot, at
all, be accepted to have been caused by throwing of bottles. That this is
a lie is already clear from the earlier discussion and also from the
evidence of the supporting witnesses, but what should be emphasised in
this context is the anxiety felt by the hostile witnesses to avoid
speaking anything about the morning incident. This is remarkable in as
much as it is a clear indication of they having been tutored in that
regard. The persons tutoring them are obviously those at whose instance
they have turned hostile. The difficulty that would be created for
the accused, if the morning incident were to be admitted, has been rightly
realised by those persons. The factors creating the alleged
impossibility or difficulty in observing – viz. smoke, darkness, distance,
etc. – could not be brought in aid for the morning incident when the
assailants and victims had faced each other.
… … …
582. It is indeed a sad commentary on human nature
that Zahira even does not wish to admit clearly that Sabira had died in
the riots and due to the fire that was set to the Best Bakery building.
Zahira stated about Sabira being in one of the rooms on the first floor
and when questioned as to what had happened to her, stated that she did
not know what had happened to her. Zahira claims to have learnt only in
the hospital that Sabira had died. Like other hostile witnesses Zahira
also uses very mild expressions as ‘due to heat’ and ‘as there
was smoke’ as the reasons for the death of Sabira, instead of saying
that she died due to the burn injuries suffered on account of the fire.
Again, while describing the condition of the dead body of Sabira, Zahira
said that her face ‘had become dark because of the smoke’. It is
remarkable that the use of the word ‘fire’ or ‘burn’ is very
methodically avoided by this witness, obviously in an anxiety and in the
false hope to make things appear less gruesome. There is no conceivable
reason, otherwise, for not using expressions such as ‘fire’, ‘burns’,
‘burnt’ etc. when speaking of a person who had died due to fire and
burn injuries and using the expression ‘smoke’, instead,
frequently.
583. The most shocking aspect of the matter is that
Zahira refuses having lodged the F.I.R. itself. To the question
whether police made inquiries with her at any time, Zahira replied that
when she was in the hospital, after two days a policeman had come; and
that he took her signature on a paper and went away. Looking to the
question and the manner in which the above answer came, it becomes clear
that Zahira had been tutored, or was at least aware that she would have to
pass through the hurdle of the F.I.R. signed by her being in existence.
584. According to Zahira, after coming down from the
terrace she was immediately taken to the hospital; and that she did not
wait on the spot after getting down for any time; and that no inquiries
were made with her, at any time. This is obviously false, in view of the
record contained in the cassette [Ex.283]. An interesting aspect can be
noticed properly by first reproducing the following question and answer
from Zahira’s evidence:
Ques.: That, that was your bakery, that it was burnt, your
name, your father’s name, etc. – when this information was given to the
police by you?
Ans.: When I went to the hospital, after 2-3 days, a
policeman had come and he took my signature on the paper brought by him.
[Pg.1141 of Notes of Evidence].
585. This is remarkable. This shows that not only
Zahira is aware of there being an F.I.R containing her signature but is
also aware of what it contains. There was no reference in the question to
any statement and there was no occasion to connect the question of
information given by Zahira to the incident of a policeman taking her
signature on a paper, unless Zahira would know that in that particular
paper, the information referred to in the question was available.
586. Zahira admits that the F.I.R. [Ex.136] is the
document on which her signature was obtained by the policeman in the
hospital; and that her signature had been obtained by a policeman only on
one paper. The question and answer reproduced above clearly indicates that
Zahira does know what is written in the document [Ex.136].
587. Curiously, the record of the deposition of
Zahira as given by her during the previous trial does show that Zahira did
state before that Court that she had talked to the police about the
incident. Zahira was confronted with the portion [Ex.137 and Ex.137/A]
in her original deposition [X-60 for identification] before that Court
which reads as ‘I had talked to the police about this incident’ and
the ‘police had obtained my signature on my statement’, but still
denied having made the statement. Zahira was also confronted with the
other portion [Ex.137/B] in her original deposition, which shows that
Zahira admitted in that Court that the F.I.R. bore her signature; and that
it was recorded in Sayaji Hospital, but Zahira denied even having said so.
This denial cannot, at all, be accepted. There is nothing to show that
this particular record of the Court is not accurate. The facts stated in
those portions are natural and probable and the denial of the fact that
she lodged an F.I.R. is what is actually unbelievable and unnatural.
588. Why Zahira is hostile to such an extent and what
are the reasons for her making statements which are obviously false and
which one is ordinarily expected to realise as would not be believed, is a
matter difficult to understand and requires deep probe. Though ultimately
Zahira does not dispute the incident, it has taken a great deal of effort
to get the facts from her…
589. … It is not that the witness only wants to
refuse to say anything about the connection of the accused with the
alleged offences. Whether the accused are the culprits or offenders or
not and what Zahira says in that regard would be a different matter, but
even after admitting that riots had taken place and also admitting in what
manner they had taken place and how serious the incident was, she is not
ready to say that there was a danger to their lives. This makes it
clear that the interests of those, at whose instance she is speaking lies,
are totally different and much larger than merely protecting the accused.
This, as contended by the learned Spl. P.P, might be a sign of the
pressure that is in the mind of the witness, apart from the possibility,
which clearly exists, that she has secured monetary benefit from the
interested persons to depose in the manner in which she has. It is further
remarkable that even after admitting that there was danger outside, to the
very next question as to ‘from whom was the danger’, Zahira was not ready
to say that it was from the rioters. The Court Note in that regard [on
pg.1164 of the Notes of Evidence] records that Zahira gave irrelevant
answers to the effect that throwing of stones and bottles was going on,
curfew was there and after much time was spent, Zahira stated that she did
not know from whom the danger was. Obviously, the idea is again to
emphasise that she did not know who were the rioters, but this is rather
unusual. At that stage, nobody expected her to say who were the rioters
and a person who would not be determined to tell lies at all costs and to
shake the basic version of the prosecution case on the basis of his or her
own statements only, would have certainly said that the danger was from
the rioters. In fact, the previous answer given by her does say so; and
that outside there was danger, had been said by Zahira with respect to the
rioting going on outside only, but still she is not ready to utter the
simple words that ‘there was danger from rioters’. That she does
not know the rioters is eagerly, and before waiting for that subject to be
touched, said by her. Anyway, Zahira did admit, after persistent
questioning, that it is due to the fact that the riots were going on
outside, she and her family did not come outside her house for saving
their lives. In spite of her refusing to clearly admit that there was
danger to their lives from the rioters, or at least they felt so, this is
clearly established because, though there was danger to their lives by
remaining in the house, still they did not come out of the house. The only
conclusion therefrom is that the danger that was – or was so perceived by
them – outside, was more than the danger in remaining inside the house.
Even thereafter, Zahira was not ready to admit the simple undisputed and
already spoken fact by her that, because of the riots, they were in danger
till the police arrived in the morning. The questions and answers in that
regard are worth reproducing to give a correct idea of the attitude of
this witness.
Ques.: Because of the riots, you were in danger till the
police arrived in the morning?
Ans.: At that time, we were frightened and were therefore
unable to understand anything.
[Court Note: The question is again repeated].
Ans.: That time, we were injured also, we were frightened
also and that is why, throughout the night, we were on the terrace only.
Ques.: You and your family were in danger throughout the
night and till the police arrived in the morning?
Ans.: We were so much frightened that we did not
understand anything.
Ques.: Whether the reason for your being so much
frightened was that you felt danger to you and your family?
Ans.: At that time, even the servants were injured and
also my brothers were injured and therefore, we were unable to understand.
[Pg.1166 of Notes of Evidence].
The object of reproducing this is to highlight how serious
the matter is from the point of view of administration of justice. The
witness, it seems, is determined to make a mockery of the whole system of
administration of justice.
590. As to why Zahira and the others went to Vadodara
from Mumbai after the retrial had started, Zahira has given the reason
that ‘gundas’ started coming to their house and threatening them
that they would have to give evidence as the ‘gundas’ would say;
and that they would have to do as the ‘gundas’ would tell.
According to Zahira, she and others refused by telling them that they
would tell the truth. The ‘gundas’ then said that they would shoot
them dead. Thereafter, Zahira and others decided to go to Vadodara. This
story was revealed when the question, as to when the decision to go
to Vadodara was taken, was asked. This story did not provide an answer to
what was asked – viz. ‘when’. The question was repeated and the
opportunity to speak further and give the names of certain persons as ‘gundas’
– i.e. Raees Khan, Mohammad Vora – was seized by Zahira. Zahira mentioned
about Smt. Teesta Setalvad also coming to their house and telling them
that they would have to do as she would say. It is obvious that this all
is a tutored version of the original stand of the persons who had tutored
Zahira and other hostile witnesses. Obviously, this tutoring was thought
by them as necessary to explain the happenings leading up to the retrial.
Considering the background in which the retrial came to be ordered,
considering the various statements made by Zahira and others – not only
before media but before statutory authorities as well – before and after
the first trial, turning hostile and disowning everything that had
transpired before the retrial was not easy. The only story could be of
being abducted to Mumbai, kept in confinement, tutored and threatened and
then, when the retrial was about to start, ultimately escaping from the
clutches, going to Vadodara, feeling secure thereafter and telling the
truth. As discussed at various places and as shall be dealt with more
specifically later, this story cannot be accepted at all. It is so
incredible, so improper, so contrary to reason and logic that it must have
taken a great deal of courage to put forth such an improbable story. What
is further surprising is the estimate of Zahira, and those who tutored
her, about the degree of credulity that the Court may possess.
591. A tendency on the part of Zahira not to give
straight answers to the questions put by the learned Spl. P.P., to
introduce certain matters which apparently were already decided as to be
said, was noticed and therefore she was allowed to narrate her version.
Zahira then narrated all the events from the riots till she, along with
others, went to Vadodara after the retrial had started, contacted Advocate
Atul Mistry and demanded help from ‘Jan Adhikar Samiti’. This
narration [from page nos.1170 to 1178 of Notes of Evidence] is what
Zahira’s initial version before this Court is. Smt. Manjula Rao, the
learned Spl. P.P., has immediately, after the said narration was recorded,
got it confirmed from Zahira that it has been accurately recorded…
The salient features of the initial version of Zahira
before this Court are as follows:
a) That the riots indeed took place. Their building
and some other premises had caught fire. Rioters were throwing stones and
bottles due to which her brother and the servants were injured.
b) In the morning, police, ambulance and fire brigade
came and made Zahira and others get down and took them to the hospital.
c) Two to three days after going to the hospital, one
policeman came and took her signature.
d) Zahira was shown dead bodies of Sabira and their
servants in the hospital.
e) Her evidence was recorded in the Court of Vadodara,
which she gave on oath, and spoke the truth.
f) After the verdict was given by the Court, she went
to her native place.
g) When she came back, Mohammad Vora, Arif Malik and
Munna Malik came to her house and forcibly took Zahira and Nafitulla to
Mumbai.
h) At Mumbai, Zahira met Teesta Madam who explained
that she would see to it that Zahira and her family were compensated for
the loss caused to them, that she would restore their bakery and house;
and that they would have to do as she would say.
i) Smt. Teesta Setalvad held a press conference
thereafter and kept Zahira initially with her for a month and then with
one Ishaq, her relative.
j) Papers, blank papers, stamp papers, computer papers
were being brought to Zahira. Zahira was told that the bakery was to be
transferred in the name of her mother and her signatures on several papers
were obtained. This way, four months passed.
k) At one point thereafter, Zahira asked Teesta Madam
why her signatures were being taken on so many papers. Smt. Teesta
Setalvad gave an answer suggesting that they were required for some
proceedings in the Court. Zahira refused to make any more signatures.
l) Earlier, Zahira had been taken to Delhi by Smt.
Teesta Setalvad.
m) After Zahira’s refusal to make more signatures, Smt.
Teesta Setalvad and Raees Khan started pressurising her.
n) Zahira then came to her mother’s house, but there
also Raees Khan came and troubled Zahira and others.
o) Raees Khan said that Zahira would have to do
everything for the community.
p) A few days before Zahira went to Vadodara, Smt.
Teesta Setalvad and Raees Khan came to Zahira’s mother’s house and
quarrelled with her mother. They wanted to have Zahira with them for
making her give false evidence in the Court.
q) Zahira and others refused to do such a false thing.
r) Thereafter, Nasibulla was caught by the ‘gundas’
of Raees Khan and was being forcibly taken somewhere in a vehicle.
s) Zahira’s mother rescued Nasibulla but when she went
to lodge a ‘fariyad’ at the police station, Raees Khan reached
there also. The police did not record any complaint and therefore Zahira
and others were forced to go to Vadodara.
t) Even after they went to Vadodara, Mohammad Vora and
others were searching for them.
u) Zahira and Nafitulla met ‘Vakilsaab’ Atul
Mistry in the Court and narrated the things to him. Advocate Atul Mistry
wrote it down and prepared an affidavit.
v) Zahira then demanded help from ‘Jan Adhikar
Samiti’ [which is frequently referred to by the hostile witnesses as ‘Jan
Adhikari’ and stated to be a person by name Tushar Vyas].
592. The story would be put to the test during the
discussion on Zahira’s evidence, but what is significant and must be noted
at this stage is that as per this version, which is the basic version
sought to be advanced by Zahira, she never made any statements about
this case or did not make mention to anybody about this case either before
or after the previous trial. At the most, the suggestion is that after
the previous trial some written complaints purporting to be of Zahira
might have been made by Smt. Teesta Setalvad on the basis of Zahira’s
signatures obtained by her on various papers. This is to be kept in
mind because the later examination of Zahira reveals that almost
everything that led to the retrial was stated by Zahira to various
authorities and on various occasions and this included even the names of
the accused persons in this case and it is after she was forced to admit
having made the statements, a theory of she having made the statements as
tutored has been advanced. In this original narration, there is no
mention of her being made to say certain things. Apart from there being no
express mention, the story is consistent enough to indicate the absence of
any such mentioning on the part of Zahira. From this, Zahira appears to be
a very truthful person and the moment she suspects some foul play, she
refused to make signatures and the moment she was told that she will have
to speak lies, she refused and escaped from that place and went to
Vadodara. Interestingly, even when forced to admit having made some
statements concerning this case contrary to what she is now telling the
Court, the initial attempt was to attribute those statements to the
tutoring of Smt. Teesta Setalvad only. However, when caught in a
situation where the period of having made those statements was indicated
as prior to Zahira’s meeting Smt. Teesta Setalvad, the tutoring came to be
attributed to various others – i.e. local people from Vadodara. Why
this has been dealt with in depth, by reproducing the entire version, is
because it is necessary to expose the conspiracy behind advancing such
version and by highlighting improbabilities contained therein. This is
necessary to be done because this is an attempt to show that retrial has
been wrongly ordered and, in fact, such arguments were advanced on behalf
of the accused.
593. Shri Adhik Shirodkar, the learned Senior
Advocate, repeatedly contended that Zahira is telling the truth; and that
it would be revealed to the Court at the end of the trial that it was
‘blunder’ to order a retrial. Much was spoken about the conspiracy behind
getting a retrial ordered but, after going through the entire evidence and
considering all the relevant matters, it appears to me that there was
perhaps a conspiracy to make a fiasco of the retrial by whatsoever means.
594. Zahira went to the extent of denying that she
lodged the F.I.R. This is clearly falsified by the evidence of PI Baria
[P.W.72]. First of all, that the F.I.R. bears the signature of Zahira is
not in dispute at all. There are various entries in the station house
diary showing that the F.I.R. was lodged at 15.15 hours on 02/03/2002; and
that it was lodged by Zahira. The time of making these entries could not
be manipulated beyond a particular limit. Moreover, PI Baria had no
conceivable reason to make a false claim of Zahira having lodged the F.I.R.
Apart from this, there is a clear indication that Zahira’s denial in that
regard is false, by what has been elicited from her by Smt. Manjula Rao,
the learned Spl. P.P.
… … …
596. PI Baria’s evidence clearly shows that a copy of
the F.I.R. was also given to Zahira and her acknowledgement in that regard
was obtained.
597. Zahira admits that she knows what was the result
of the case in the Vadodara Court and what was the decision of that Court.
It is remarkable that when asked as to what was the decision, which she
claimed to have heard from somebody, she states that she heard about the
decision as ‘whatever was true had happened’. She is however unable to
explain what was the so called truth. This indicates that she is merely
saying something that is tutored. She claimed that she did not know, till
the date she was giving evidence, as to what had happened to the case
after it was over in the Court at Vadodara; and that she did not know why
the case is now being tried in Mumbai. Thus, what she wants to claim is
total unawareness of the grievances about the previous trial, the
proceedings before the Gujarat High Court and the Supreme Court and the
order for retrial made by the Supreme Court. However, this stand,
which is consistent with what was the original tutoring to Zahira, does
not stand up to scrutiny. Zahira was forced to admit, as a result of
further questioning, that she knew what was going on; and that she had
made certain statements, though on being tutored by Smt. Teesta Setalvad
and others. Thus, expressing total ignorance as to what had happened in
the Court at Vadodara and thereafter leading to the present retrial is
absolutely false.
598. Document marked [X-51 for identification] was
produced by the prosecution through Smt. Teesta Setalvad. This document
purports to be a letter written by Zahira in her own handwriting. Zahira,
when confronted with this document, denied it to be written by her. She
denied that it was in her handwriting. However, she did admit signature
thereon as hers. Zahira tried to explain this by saying that her
signatures were obtained on several blank papers. I am not inclined to
believe Zahira on this at all. Ordinarily, when a person admits his
signature on a document it would be rather difficult for him or her to
dispute the authorship or the contents thereof. The document has been
produced by Smt. Teesta Setalvad, to whom it purports to have been
addressed. Now, when the signature is admitted by Zahira and the document
is produced by Smt. Teesta Setalvad there are only two reasonable
possibilities in that regard. The first is that the letter is indeed
written by Zahira and the other is that it is forged by Smt. Teesta
Setalvad. I have considered this aspect. Zahira was made to write certain
matter while in the witness box itself in accordance with the provisions
of Section 73 of the Evidence Act, in order to enable the Court to compare
her handwriting with the handwriting of the document [X-51 for
identification]. These writings obtained from Zahira under Section 73 have
been marked as Ex.140, Ex.141 and Ex.142. Upon a careful consideration of
all the handwriting in Ex.140, Ex.141 and Ex.142, with the handwritings in
X-51, together with the fact that the signature thereon is admitted to
have been made by Zahira, I have no doubt whatsoever that the letter [X-51
for identification] has been written by Zahira only. Though, ordinarily, a
Court would not undertake upon itself to get decided the authorship of
disputed handwriting and would ordinarily depend on opinion of experts on
it, nothing prevents the Court from forming any opinion on its own in that
regard.
599. The observations made by the Supreme Court of
India in Murarilal Versus State of M.P. AIR 1980 Supreme Court 531,
leave no manner of doubt in respect of this position. The Supreme
Court observed that:
"The argument that the Court should not venture to
compare writings itself, as it would thereby assume to itself the role of
an expert, is entirely without force. Section 73 of the Evidence Act
expressly enables the Court to compare disputed writings with admitted or
proved writings to ascertain whether a writing is that of the person by
whom it purports to have been written. If it is hazardous to do so, as
sometimes said, we are afraid it is one of the hazards to which judge and
litigant must expose themselves whenever it becomes necessary"
[para-12] [emphasis supplied].
600. The Supreme Court of India went on to observe
that it becomes the plain duty of the Court to compare the writings and
come to its own conclusion whether or not experts have been called and
examined. It was observed as follows:
"The duty cannot be avoided by recourse to the statement
that the Court is no expert" [para-12].
601. Further, here the opinion is not being based only
on the comparison of handwriting, but upon considering the entire facts
including the one that the signature on the letter is admittedly of Zahira.
602. Moreover, the other possibility would only be the
possibility of forgery having been committed by Smt. Teesta Setalvad [or
somebody on her behalf] after obtaining signature of Zahira on a blank
paper. Now, every forgery has some motive. It is done with some object. In
order to ascertain the authorship of the document, contents thereof can
certainly be looked into, though not as evidence of the facts stated
therein or as to the truth of the contents. Thus, the document [X-51 for
identification] only speaks of Zahira’s intention to fight her case from
the beginning and explaining how she had changed her statement in the
Court due to threats. Now, if Smt. Teesta Setalvad wanted to forge a
letter by taking advantage of the signature of Zahira on a blank paper,
she could have written much more damaging matter in this letter. It may be
recalled that the motive attributed to Smt. Teesta Setalvad is to malign
the Government of Gujarat for ulterior motives. It is not alleged that she
has any personal enmity or ill will against the accused. What is alleged
is that she wanted to show that the previous trial was tainted, that it
was designed to ensure the acquittal of the accused, that the
investigation had been faulty, that the State did not take any interest in
punishing the culprits and protect the minority. If at all forgery was to
be committed, in the circumstances, many more damaging things could have
been written instead of a plain letter merely expressing desire to fight
the matter all over again and attributing the previous testimony to the
threats.
603. In the circumstances, I have no manner of doubt
that the document [X-51 for identification] has been written by Zahira
only and her denial in that regard is false.
… … …
605. There is much to be discussed about Zahira’s
evidence if that what she speaks are total lies is to be emphasised.
Almost everything that she states is contradictory, inconsistent and
incredible. It is easy to understand that this is happening because the
story which she wants to advance and which she narrated as referred to
earlier is itself absurd and improbable. To resile from the
statements, after going much ahead and to explain the allegations and
assertions made before various competent and statutory authorities, before
the media, would indeed be a difficult task; and in an attempt to do so by
reason of fear felt or on account of having been offered monetary
inducement, or by both, it is no wonder that Zahira’s evidence has
rendered itself visibly unreliable and false. … … …
606. Zahira has admitted that she had been before the
Manav Adhikar Ayog when she was residing in the house of Iqbal
Ansari i.e. immediately after the incident and within a period of one
month thereafter. She states that she was taken there by Mohammad Vora and
Munna Malik and was tutored to say certain things, which she did. This,
she states, was done by her on 2-3 occasions. She wants to suppress the
fact that she had made a grievance before Manav Adhikar Ayog and
therefore states that she does not remember what she told them but that
whatever was told was as was tutored to her. It may, incidentally, be
observed that this any way demolishes the theory of Zahira being tutored
by Smt. Teesta Setalvad as, admittedly, Smt. Teesta Setalvad was not in
the picture at all before the previous trial had ended.
607. When an attempt was being made to confront Zahira
with a certain document purporting to contain a record of statement
previously made by her, all sorts of objections were raised by the
Advocates for the accused, which objections were without any substance.
608. As discussed earlier, the persons at whose
instance Zahira and others from her family had turned hostile obviously
appear to have a desire to attribute all the allegations made by Zahira
about the improper conduct of the previous trial, regarding her demand for
retrial, etc., to the fraud played upon her by Smt. Teesta Setalvad. The
narration of Zahira reproduced earlier indicates what was the initial
attempt – as if Zahira knows nothing. This has not succeeded, as discussed
aforesaid, in as much as there is ample evidence on record – even of
Zahira herself – that she did, in fact, make certain statements and that
was before she had met Smt. Teesta Setalvad. It is after realising that
she could not implicate Smt. Teesta Setalvad in the matter of having made
those supposedly false statements that Zahira started saying about the
tutoring and pressurising by Mohammad Vora, Munna Malik and Arif Malik,
etc., from Vadodara.
609. Thus, the initial theory was that Zahira had not
made any statements at all. Then the theory – when having made statements
could no more be denied – was changed to the effect that statements were
made, but on being tutored or pressurised by Smt. Teesta Setalvad.
Thereafter, the theory is further changed – because of the realisation
that at that point of time Smt. Teesta Setalvad could not be brought into
the picture – and the tutoring is attributed to the persons from her
community. The theory of pressure by Smt. Teesta Setalvad, which was
thought to be a solution to all the questions that would crop up in any
reasonable mind after Zahira would turn hostile again in the retrial, has,
any way, miserably failed. This needs to be further highlighted by
pointing out from Zahira’s evidence itself that the claim of Smt. Teesta
Setalvad having abducted Zahira, kept her in confinement etc., is false.
Zahira was questioned as to how were her and her family’s relations with
Smt. Teesta Setalvad when she was residing at Yari Road and Zahira said
that at that time her relations and also of her mother, her brothers and
her sister with Smt. Teesta Setalvad and her children were good. Zahira
has admitted that Smt. Teesta Setalvad used to treat her very well and
behave very well with her. Zahira has categorically stated that she used
to maintain and look after Zahira properly, though has added that Smt.
Teesta Setalvad might be getting help. But there has been no denial of the
fact that Zahira was being looked after properly by Smt. Teesta Setalvad,
in the words of Zahira, ‘achhe se rakhti thi’ [pages 1278-1279 of
the Notes of Evidence]. This has been repeated by her during her evidence.
[Pages 1508-1509 of the Notes of Evidence].
610. It is contended by Smt. Manjula Rao, the learned
Spl. P.P., that Zahira has claimed as having approached Advocate Atul
Mistry for help because of the threats that were being given to her, but
she has not been able to give any proper answer for not going to the
Gujarat Police before that. … … …
It is only thereafter, and when the question was again
repeated, Zahira said that she thought it necessary to take the opinion of
an Advocate. However, she had to admit that even after taking the opinion
of the Advocate she did not lodge any complaint at any police station.
Mrs. Rao is certainly right in contending that this shows that Zahira was
unable to explain her conduct. However, what is significant, in my
opinion, is quite different. A more pertinent aspect of the matter is
why did she not go to the police, or to any Advocate, earlier – i.e. when
the first trial was to be held. It is because, according to Zahira,
persons from her community were pressurising and threatening her at that
time. The question is how and why she did not bother about the threats
from the people at that time? Would the Gujarat Police have not given her
protection from the threats that were being given by Mohammed Vora, Arif
Malik and Munna Malik to tell lies in the Court? Why Zahira did not
consult any Advocate at that time, even assuming that she did not want to
go to the police for some reason at that time, is not capable of being
explained. Moreover, interestingly, she did not pay any heed to the
threats and was not scared of the same persons at that time. She
proceeded to speak ‘the truth’ during the first trial without bothering
about the threats by the persons from her community. Thus, by pressure,
she used to make the ‘tutored statements’ before media, various
authorities, etc.; but when the trial took place, the pressure
disappeared. She spoke the truth. When the trial was over, again pressure
mounted to speak the lies. She succumbed to that but when the retrial
started, again the pressure disappeared. Thus, the pressure works on all
occasions except when the stage of trial comes. This may be left at that
only without making any further comments.
… … …
Collusion between Accused and Hostile Witnesses
612. Mrs. Rao contended during the course of arguments
that the collusion between the hostile witnesses and the accused was
apparent; and that the Advocates for the accused have resorted,
deliberately, to making frivolous and baseless objections at such times
when they apprehended that an answer favourable to the prosecution could
be elicited from the witness. It is contended by Smt. Rao that rather than
the own Advocates of the witnesses, the Advocates for the accused have
been zealous in guarding the rights of those witnesses under the garb of
protecting the rights of the accused.
613. In the facts and circumstances, I do not wish to
go deeper into this matter, the same not being necessary. It is however a
fact that many of the objections raised by the defence during the
recording of evidence seem to be utterly baseless, as elaborately held in
the relevant Court Notes.
614. Ultimately, Zahira has admitted that in a
press conference held previously she had stated before the media that due
to fear Zahira and her family members did not speak the truth before the
Court at Vadodara. She certainly qualifies it by saying that she had
stated so on being tutored by Smt. Teesta Setalvad, but does not deny
having stated so.
615. Zahira has said about Smt. Teesta Setalvad
tutoring her and also about Smt. Teesta telling her that she would call
for photographs from Gujarat and Zahira would have to identify the
photographs. However, according to Zahira, she did not actually see the
photographs. She refused to see them. Though Zahira wanted to offer an
explanation of her previous statements and to attribute the same to
tutoring, one fact has been clearly revealed from whatever she stated,
that she does admit that she gave the names of the prisoners in the
‘Best Bakery Case’. Though initially she denied this, later on she
admitted having given the names, though – of course – on being tutored by
‘persons from her community’. She has also admitted that she had given the
names of the prisoners in the ‘Best Bakery Case’ before giving evidence in
the Court at Vadodara. Zahira has admitted having given the names of
the prisoners in the Best Bakery Case to National Human Rights Commission,
Election Commission [though, of course, on being tutored]. This
completely destroys the contention, which is emphatically put by the
defence, that a false case has been cooked up at the instance of Smt.
Teesta Setalvad. What emerges from Zahira’s evidence is that she had
undoubtedly given the names of certain prisoners as the culprits in this
case, though she says that she does not remember those names now and
though the names were given on being tutored by ‘persons from her
community’. It also emerges that these names were given by her even
before the previous trial. It is however remarkable that in spite of
admitting this Zahira was categorical in maintaining that she had not
given the names of anyone to the police. Her denial of not having given
the names to the police cannot be accepted. If she had gone to so many
authorities, there was no reason for her not giving the names to the
police. If the persons from her community were tutoring her to name
certain persons as culprits before statutory authorities, there was no
reason for them not to make Zahira give those names to the police. In
fact, giving the names to the police would have been more important and
would have fetched the desired results. Zahira’s explanation in that
regard [pg.1535 of the Notes of Evidence], that the names were not given
to the police as the police did not come to her, cannot be accepted.
616. Zahira also admits having stated before the media
that she had not spoken the truth in the Vadodara Court due to fear.
617. Smt. Rao, the learned Spl. P.P., has rightly, in
my opinion, got it confirmed again from Zahira that she did state before
this Court that she had given the names of the prisoners in the ‘Best
Bakery Case’ to various authorities [although on persons from her
community having tutored her to that effect].
618. Zahira has admitted that neither Mohammed Vora,
nor Munna Malik nor Arif Malik, were residing in Hanuman Tekdi locality. I
agree with the contention advanced by the Special Public Prosecutor in
this regard that this is important from the point of view as to the
likelihood of the witness having been tutored the names by persons
residing outside the locality. The contention of the learned Spl. P.P. is
that the accused are undoubtedly from the locality [which aspect shall be
discussed and dealt with later] and since Mohammed Vora, Munna Malik and
Arif Malik are not residents of the same locality it was highly unlikely
that they knew the names of the persons residing in Zahira’s locality.
619. In my opinion, that Zahira might have forgotten
to state the fact of tutoring cannot be accepted. It is crystal clear that
had the fact been true, it being such an important aspect, Zahira would
never have forgotten to mention it. It is clear that community people
approaching her, her going to various authorities, making allegations,
giving statements, would have been an aspect ultimately leading to the
stage when a retrial came to be ordered and in narrating the happenings
till then, no one would omit this most important aspect. It is clear from
Zahira’s evidence that the initial trend was towards denying the
happenings itself. There was a definite claim of not having stated or
alleged anything at all. The trend was towards indicating that no culprits
or offenders were seen at all, no complaint had been made at all and that
there was no question of having any grievance about the previous trial at
all, there was no question of having demanded a retrial at all, etc., etc.
However, the steps taken by Zahira were so many and as the record of many
of them was available in some form or the other, it could no longer be
denied by her, as the examination by the learned Spl. P.P. progressed,
that she had made certain statements. In this regard
also, the admissions have developed slowly; firstly about having
complained about the incident, then gradually developing and finally
coming up to a stage where even the admission of having given the names of
the ‘prisoners of the Best Bakery case’ has been made. It is when
the admissions regarding the previous statements, contrary to what is now
being stated by her, became unavoidable, a theory of tutoring was
simultaneously introduced.
620. Zahira claimed that in the papers filed before
the Supreme Court of India, whatever had not happened was wrongly written
by Smt. Teesta Setalvad. Zahira claimed that no photographer or
videographer had come to the place of the Best Bakery along with the
police in the morning of 02/03/2002, which is obviously wrong and
incorrect in view of the clear evidence of not only Gautam Chauhan
[P.W.69], but also of PI Baria [P.W.72] and the video cassette [Ex.283]
itself.
… … …
635. When Zahira [P.W.41] was confronted with the C.D.
[Ex.283/3 equivalent to the relevant part of the video cassette (Ex.283)],
she admitted that the shooting was relating to their house and of the
morning of 02/03/2002. In spite of previously denying the presence of
Yasmin and after having seen Yasmin present on the scene recorded in the
C.D., Zahira did not express any surprise. Ultimately, in the process
of questioning and answering, Zahira has admitted that at the time of the
incident she had seen that Yasmin was sitting. Thus, ultimately, Zahira
has admitted the presence of Yasmin. Further, Zahira has again
confirmed the presence of Yasmin by saying that when the police and the
fire brigade came they – i.e. she, her mother and her sister-in-law – were
on the terrace, though that they were on the terrace at that time is
obviously false as disclosed earlier. It is pertinent to note that
Yasmin’s presence on that day along with Zahira and others has not been
denied by Zahira and the previous denials in that regard were given up
when confronted with the relevant part of the cassette.
… … …
637. Thus, the following aspects are admitted even by
them [or such of them as are concerned with respect to a particular
aspect].
i) The incident of a mob of rioters setting fire to
Best Bakery building and other premises such as Lal Mohammad’s ‘wakhar’
and Aslam’s house indeed took place.
ii) The mob was of Hindu persons and was giving
slogans to the effect ‘maro’ ‘kato’ ‘bakery
jalao’ ‘har har mahadeo’ etc. That in the fire that was set,
immovable and movable property of a considerably huge amount was damaged
and destroyed.
iii) That seven persons died as a result of burn
injuries sustained by them due to the fire that had been set to the Best
Bakery building.
iv) That Nafitulla and Nasibulla were injured in the
riots.
v) That the rioting was going on throughout the night;
and that the mob was throwing stones, bricks, soda water bottles and bulbs
filled with kerosene on the terrace of the Best Bakery building.
vi) After the police and fire brigade came, the
injured, including Nafitulla, Nasibulla and also Zahira, Saherunnisa,
Sahera and Yasmin were taken to S.S.G. Hospital.
vii) Zahira appeared before the various authorities,
such as Human Rights Commission, Election Commission, etc., and narrated
the incident. She also named certain persons as the culprits.
viii) Zahira did give the names of the prisoners of
the Best Bakery Case as the culprits before certain authorities, though
not to the police.
ix) In the hospital, the police had come and obtained
Zahira’s signature on a paper, which paper is admitted to be the document
[Ex.136 (F.I.R.)].
638. Thus, almost everything relating to the
prosecution case has been admitted by Zahira and the other hostile
witnesses. What is not admitted is the connection of the accused, though
even the fact that some names – and that too of the prisoners of the ‘Best
Bakery Case’ – were being given by Zahira from time to time to various
authorities is admitted. The dispute is only about having given names
to the police. In the ultimate analysis, the claim is not that the
names of some persons as the culprits were not given at all by Zahira at
any time to any authorities, but the claim is that they were given on
being tutored; and that presently she does not know or remember what were
those names. The alleged tutoring also has been done not only by Smt.
Teesta Setalvad, as originally suggested, but by various different persons
at different periods of time.
639. There is a conscious effort, as already observed,
to avoid disclosing the morning incident as deposed to by the supporting
witnesses. There is, therefore, an assertion on the part of these
witnesses that those who were injured, including Nafitulla and Nasibulla,
were injured in the night itself and had lost consciousness. These hostile
witnesses claim that they and even the others came down, or were brought
down, from the terrace only after the police had arrived. Therefore, if
this is true, Sailun, Baliram, Prakash, Rajesh, Raees and Taufel all
sustained injuries in the night itself. Apart from the fact that the
injuries sustained by them, including those by Nafitulla and Nasibulla,
are not such which can be caused by throwing of stones, bottles or bulbs,
etc., the absurdity of this claim is exposed by the fact that none of the
women who were on the terrace were injured on account of the stone
throwing and bottle throwing etc. In the random stone throwing and
bottle throwing which was going on throughout the night only the men would
sustain so severe injuries, without even one of the women sustaining any
serious injuries, cannot be believed by any sensible person. The story of
the hostile witnesses, of the police coming and rescuing them therefore
leaves this aspect – viz. how the men were so badly injured and how the
women were not injured – unanswered. This theory is explained only if the
morning incident as deposed to by the witnesses is true.
640. In the ultimate analysis, therefore, the
evidence of the hostile witnesses supports the prosecution case to a large
extent and in spite of the initial extreme stand taken by them they
ultimately admitted a substantially large part of the prosecution case,
except the part relating to establishing the connection of the accused
persons with the alleged offences.
Jan Adhikar SAMITI
641. The examination of the hostile witnesses has
revealed certain disturbing aspects. These witnesses who are hostile and
who are obviously speaking lies, as amply demonstrated by a discussion of
their evidence, have been actively assisted and supported by some person
or persons from Vadodara, by looking after all their financial needs and
by providing for the expenses of their Advocate. It emerges from their
evidence that Advocate Atul Mistry used to come along with these witnesses
and used to remain present in the Court during their examination.
Nasibulla states that he did not know Advocate Atul Mistry at all; and
that he was introduced to him by his brother. All his fees are paid not by
any one of these hostile witnesses but by ‘Jan Adhikar Samiti’.
According to Nafitulla, ‘Jan Adhikar Samiti’ provided the services
of Advocate Atul Mistry to him and others. According to Nafitulla, he and
Zahira met Advocate Atul Mistry only on the day on which the press
conference was held by Zahira after going to Vadodara. It was after the
retrial had started.
642. Sahera [P.W.35], though knows Atul Mistry to be
her Advocate, claims that she has never met him. What is interesting is
that Sahera was not able to state what was the necessity for her to engage
an Advocate. In spite of repeated questions, she was unable to give an
answer as to what was the requirement for an Advocate. Advocate Atul
Mistry is the one who told Sahera to appear before this Court – at least
Sahera states so. The evidence of Sahera [P.W.35] shows that Advocate Atul
Mistry had given a vehicle to her by which she and 3 policemen travelled
up to Mumbai. Sahera did not pay any money for the petrol, which was
already filled in, in the vehicle. She also did not pay any money to the
driver.
643. Saherunnisa [P.W.40] speaks of Atul Mistry being
her Advocate. Her evidence shows that when she came for giving evidence,
she came by the police vehicle and that 3 policemen, one woman police
constable and her Advocate also travelled by the same police vehicle.
644. When Sahera was being examined, it was noticed
that she had been given police protection. A number of irregularities
which were shocking and surprising were noticed in the matter of giving
police protection. Curiously, Sahera and these witnesses did not want
protection from the Mumbai Police.
645. Sahera was not accompanied by any woman
constable. Male police constables had been sent with her, supposedly for
her protection, in an irregular manner. No order requiring them to
accompany her to Mumbai was produced. Sahera, however, had no complaint or
grievance and there was nothing to indicate that she was under any threat
or fear, etc.
646. The evidence of Saherunnisa [P.W.40] shows that
Advocate Atul Mistry used to do reservations in the lodge, reservation of
vehicles and also used to take decisions as to where the witness would be
staying, etc. The Government of Maharashtra had made available
accommodation to the witnesses in the government guest house but the
hostile witnesses preferred to stay at different places with their
Advocate. ‘Jan Adhikari’, though helping these witnesses
financially, was not giving any money directly to them. The money was
being given to Advocate Atul Mistry and the details of the payment were
not being disclosed to these witnesses. Saherunnisa was unable to explain
what help was being given to them by the ‘Jan Adhikari’. … … …
647. How Zahira met Advocate Atul Mistry is an
interesting story. When Zahira and others went to Vadodara by car after
the commencement of the retrial, she and Nafitulla met Atul Mistry in the
Court. When she went to the Court of Vadodara and told one Advocate that
she wanted to engage an Advocate, that Advocate pointed out to Advocate
Atul Mistry and said that they [Zahira and Nafitulla] should talk to him.
Zahira had never met Advocate Atul Mistry at any time prior to that and
she asked the first mentioned Advocate whether he would take up her case.
According to Zahira, the Advocate previously contacted by her in the Court
told her by pointing out towards Advocate Atul Mistry ‘woh wale
vakil ke paas jao’. According to Zahira, she herself found out
Advocate Atul Mistry by going to the Court and nobody recommended or
introduced him to her. This is the cock and bull story, which the Court is
expected to believe. According to Zahira, they narrated things to Advocate
Atul Mistry and he wrote them down and prepared an affidavit. That then
Zahira demanded help from ‘Jan Adhikari’. Interestingly, Nafitulla
[P.W.31] says that he met Advocate Atul Mistry at the time of the press
conference and not in the Court as spoken by Zahira. Nafitulla
categorically states that he had met him only on the day on which the
press conference was held. Zahira’s evidence, on the contrary, says that
she first met Atul Mistry and then she approached ‘Jan Adhikari’,
and it is thereafter that a press conference was held. According to Zahira,
it was about 5 to 6 days prior to the holding of the press conference.
According to Zahira also, ‘Jan Adhikari’ is a person by name
‘Tushar Vyas’. Coming to the payment of fees, Zahira states that she has
not paid any fees to any of her Advocates, including Atul Mistry. Advocate
Atul Mistry had even gone along with Zahira to Gandhinagar. The booking of
the room where Zahira stayed at Gandhinagar was done by Atul Mistry.
Zahira apparently had gone for meeting ‘Mahila Ayog’. There was no
occasion to bring ‘Mahila Ayog’ in the picture in this case, as
Zahira’s grievances, if any, in respect of this case were not connected
with she being a woman and it is difficult to understand what was expected
to be done by the ‘Mahila Ayog’. The reason given by Zahira in that
regard is that ‘only a woman could understand the difficulties of a
woman’; but it is obvious that this statement does not make any sense and
has been said by Zahira as tutored. There were no problems of women in
this case, requiring cognisance to be taken by ‘Mahila Ayog’.
648. Interestingly, during the evidence, when the
question of production of her passbook arose, Zahira said that she would
make inquiries with her mother who was in Vadodara at that time, regarding
it. When she appeared before the Court on the next day, she did produce
the relevant passbook. She said that she had contacted her mother on the
telephone. She said that the telephone call was made by her from the
mobile telephone of Advocate Atul Mistry. However, on which telephone that
call was made, could not be told by her. Zahira was asked as to who gave
her the telephone number on which she spoke to her mother, to which she
replied that she did not know and she even did not know whether Advocate
Atul Mistry knew the telephone number of her mother. Advocate Atul Mistry
apparently knew the telephone number on which Zahira’s mother Saherunnisa
could be contacted, but who gave him that number, Zahira does not know.
Though, according to Zahira, the appointment of Advocate Atul Mistry has
nothing to do with the ‘Jan Adhikar Samiti’, she says that she
would talk to the persons from ‘Jan Adhikar Samiti’, if required,
through Advocate Atul Mistry. However, by people from ‘Jan Adhikari’
she was meaning Tushar Vyas. Apparently, ‘Jan Adhikari’ or ‘Jan
Adhikar Samiti’ is treated and understood as one person – Shri Tushar
Vyas – by Zahira and other witnesses and it is only when the Special
Public Prosecutor would refer to it as ‘Jan Adhikar Samiti’ they
would speak of ‘Jan Adhikar Samiti’, otherwise it would be referred
to as ‘Jan Adhikari’. Thus, Advocate Atul Mistry apparently was
accompanying Zahira and others everywhere. He used to sit in the Court
while the evidence was being recorded and though what legal services he
was rendering to them is not clear, the fact that he was doing all other
chores for them is clear. He was looking after their comforts in booking
vehicles, arranging for lodging, even dialling telephone numbers for them,
etc. ‘Jan Adhikar Samiti’ had put so much trust in him that though
he was introduced to them by Zahira, instead of giving any money to Zahira
and others, they used to hand over the money to Advocate Atul Mistry only,
who would not be required to give any accounts thereof to Zahira and
others. It is also remarkable that no receipts are taken from Zahira or
the others regarding the financial assistance given to them, by the ‘Jan
Adhikari’.
649. The role played by ‘Jan Adhikar Samiti’ in
the whole matter is also very interesting. What are the aims and objects
of this ‘samiti’, if at all it is a ‘samiti’, has not been
brought on record except that they help the weak and needy. Why they have
chosen Zahira and others as ‘needy persons’ and what is the understanding
between them is not clear. Why Zahira requires facilities for attending
the Court and requiring payment of her Advocate’s fees etc. is difficult
to understand, when all that she has to say is that she did not lodge any
report, she did not make any complaint, that she did not make any
complaint about improper trial held in the Vadodara Court, she never asked
for retrial, she never approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India; and
she does not know who are the culprits. ‘Jan Adhikari’ Shri Tushar
Vyas appears to have done a lot for Zahira and her family. The expenses of
travelling not only to Mumbai, but also to Delhi, the expenses of
Advocates, are all paid by ‘Jan Adhikari’ or ‘Jan Adhikar Samiti’.
The arrangements for the stay of these witnesses in the hotels, not only
when they visited the Court but even otherwise have been made by this ‘samiti’
through Advocate Atul Mistry and the entire financial burden is taken by
this committee. Why the rent or expenses of the place where these
witnesses were staying were being borne by ‘Jan Adhikar Samiti’
cannot be understood as all that Zahira speaks is that she wanted
financial assistance from them only for coming to the Court and going
back. It is a matter of record that Zahira was earlier bitterly
complaining about injustice done to her, about improper investigation,
about the threats having been received by her, etc. At that time, ‘Jan
Adhikar Samiti’ did not assist her. Undoubtedly, it can be said that
Zahira did not approach them at that time, but what is significant is that
Zahira approached them at a time when she decided to resile from what she
had stated before several authorities, as admitted by herself [though on
being tutored]. Thus, the help of ‘Jan Adhikari’ was sought only
when Zahira decided to advance a particular version of the incident. Even
ignoring whether the version Zahira intended to advance was true or not,
it is a fact that it is only when that version was to be advanced ‘Jan
Adhikari’ was approached and assistance was sought and obtained.
650. Since ‘Jan Adhikari’ is not before the
Court, I do not wish to make any further observations on this. The version
which Zahira is now advancing before the Court has been proved to be false
in several respects and barring that the accused are the offenders almost
everything has been wrested from her by the learned Spl. P.P.
651. The hostility of Zahira and others is a condition
difficult to understand and/or explain. There can be no doubt that they
are the victims of the offences in question. There can also be no doubt
that Zahira had lodged a report with the police on the basis of which the
crime came to be registered. There is also no doubt that Zahira and the
others turned hostile during the first trial, but after the acquittal of
the accused, complained that they had been forced to speak lies due to
threats and pressure. After a retrial was ordered, they again turned
hostile. To suppress that they had made allegations in respect of the
previous trial, they tried to attribute to Smt. Teesta Setalvad and her
organisation several wrongs. They suggested that the persons from their
community – i.e. Muslims – were attempting to force them to speak lies
during the trial, supposedly for the benefit of their community. In other
words, they wanted to show that persons from the Muslim community are
interested in causing harm to the accused in the supposed interest of the
Muslim community. Their evidence, elaborately discussed above, leaves no
manner of doubt that they are lying in several respects and have been
tutored. It also appears that they have been given monetary inducement.
652. Saherunnisa’s [P.W.40] evidence discussed above
gives me an impression that somehow these witnesses have not felt assured
of their safety and security. Having no trust in the society and the
system of administration of justice, they probably thought that their
interests lie in avoiding confrontation. Apparently, the best bargain,
under the circumstances, as thought by them, was to make some monetary
gains to make their future life somewhat better. The hostility of these
witnesses is a matter which may be of interest to psychologists and
sociologists.
653. In my opinion, whatever may be the mental
condition of these witnesses and the cause behind their attitude, the
wrongs committed by them cannot be overlooked. Whether those at whose
instance these witnesses have lied with impunity would ever be brought to
book, or would be made to pay for their misdeeds, is doubtful; but the
conduct of Zahira, Nafitulla, Nasibulla, Saherabanu and Saherunnisa cannot
be condoned. If, in spite of speaking lies persistently, no action is
taken against them, an impression would be created that the system of
administration of justice takes the lies spoken on oath before a Court of
law lightly. In my opinion, Zahira, Nafitulla, Nasibulla, Saherabanu and
Saherunnisa have knowingly given false evidence. It is necessary and
expedient in the interest of justice that they should be tried summarily
for giving false evidence.
… … …
_________________________________
INSPECTORS BARIA, KANANI
656. PI Baria [P.W.72] is the person who has recorded
the initial statements of the occurrence witnesses and as such, his
evidence is material and relevant in the context of the alleged omissions
and contradictions in the statements of the occurrence witnesses. It
cannot be helped observing that much of the cross-examination of PI Baria
has been rendered rather unnecessary in as much as the points that were
intended to be made out from such cross-examination have ultimately been
given up during the arguments.
657. A number of shortcomings in the investigation
that was carried out by PI Baria have been brought on record. I indeed
find that the investigation carried out by PI Baria was unsatisfactory.
Baria has not taken charge of the clothes of the injured. Baria has also
not taken charge of the coir ropes with which the injured had been tied.
According to Smt. Rao, the learned Spl. P.P., these lapses in the
investigation have occurred because of the difficult law and order
situation. It is submitted by Smt. Rao that considering the law and order
situation, as also the number of crimes that were being reported to
Panigate Police Station, it was not possible for Baria to coolly and
methodically investigate into the matter as he would have done under
ordinary circumstances. I have considered the matter. Even after giving
due allowance for the difficulties faced by Baria, it is not possible to
hold that he carried out the investigation properly. It appears that Baria
was not serious about the investigation and did not try to do his best to
collect evidence. However, the shortcomings in the investigation have not
prejudiced the accused in any manner. The perfunctory manner in which PI
Baria carried out the investigation does not appear to have been done with
the object of implicating the accused.
658. The learned Advocates for the accused were
probably more comfortable in questioning PI Baria in the
cross-examination, than PI Kanani, as otherwise, the aspects which
actually Kanani was competent to deal with, would not have been put to
Baria. For instance, the Accused No. 2 has been arrested on the basis that
he is ‘Mahendra Langdo’ [who was believed to be involved in the
incident]. According to the Advocates for the accused, he is not lame –
i.e. Langdo –and that there is another ‘Mahendra Langdo’ in
that locality. Baria was questioned in the cross-examination as to whether
the Accused No. 2 was Langdo and Baria readily admitted that he did
not consider the Accused No. 2 as Langdo. Interestingly, it is not
Baria who has arrested Accused No. 2 as ‘Mahendra Langdo’. It is PI
Kanani [P.W.74] who has arrested him as ‘Mahendra Langdo’. Since a
‘Mahendra Langdo’ was to be arrested and since PI Kanani arrested
Accused No. 2 as Mahendra Langdo, it would have been more
appropriate to make the demonstration that was made before Baria making
Accused No. 2 walk, hop, jump, etc., before PI Kanani and to invite
Kanani’s comments on that. The procedure, as adopted by Shri Adhik
Shirodkar, the learned Senior Advocate, has led to this result – viz.
Baria who never claimed that Accused No. 2 is Langdo, is made to
admit that he is not Langdo, but Kanani who arrested him on the
basis that he is Mahendra Langdo, is not asked whether the Accused
No. 2 was Langdo.
659. The evidence of PI Kanani [P.W.74] in the context
of the details of investigation, have already been discussed. Further, his
evidence would need discussion in the context of specific contentions
urged by the learned Advocates for the accused. I shall, therefore, make
only a general comment on the evidence of PI Kanani here. PI Kanani’s
evidence has been much criticised by the learned Advocates for the
accused. PI Kanani has been termed as ‘dishonest’, ‘liar’, ‘an arrogant
liar’ and ‘deceitful’. It is urged that comments on Kanani’s evidence
should be made by the Court while recording the Judgement and it would be
essential to pass strictures against him. In my opinion, the criticism of
PI Kanani’s evidence is absolutely unjustified, unwarranted and uncalled
for. On the contrary, the lengthy cross-examination of PI Kanani [the
notes of which run into more than 450 typewritten pages] does not seem to
be very fair. Several improper questions were put to PI Kanani and he
was unnecessarily grilled over matters which are basically in nature of
the arguments. PI Kanani was, during his cross-examination, frequently
asked questions, inviting his opinion about the effect of the evidence
given by the witnesses and in some cases also regarding the effect of the
evidence given by himself. Questions were frequently asked to him, so as
to initiate a discussion on the merits of the case and the legal issues
involved, obviously with the idea of benefiting by such discussion between
him and the cross-examiner. The grievance about the arrogance of PI Kanani
also does not seem to be justified. It is the form of the questions put to
him that has sometimes forced him to volunteer certain matter and to show
how the question is misleading, or how the basic supposition therein is
wrong. Kanani has refused to meekly submit to the propositions canvassed
by cross-examining counsel. It appears to me that it is the feeling of
frustration that has resulted in uncalled for criticism of so called
attitude of PI Kanani.
660. The cross-examination is full of improper and
unfair questioning, but I propose to give only a few illustrations thereof
here.
661. Because Kanani stated in his examination-in-chief
that he was called in the Court at Vadodara during the previous trial only
on 20/06/2003 – i.e. the date on which his evidence was recorded –
thinking that this would show that in the previous trial, his assistance
was not available to the Public Prosecutor in charge of that trial, and
disliking it, Kanani has been questioned in the cross-examination as to
‘whether he was told by anyone not to come to the Court at Vadodara
during the trial’. This question is absolutely improper. That nobody had
given information of the trial to Kanani; and that he had not received any
summons; and that he attended the Court only on the date on which his
evidence was recorded is not challenged, but the suggestion is that he
could have very well attended the Court earlier, ‘because he was
not told by anyone not to come to the Court’. Such a suggestion
is absurd. It cannot be expected that a police officer posted in Ahmedabad
would or should simply leave his duties and come to Vadodara during the
trial because ‘he was not told by anyone not to come to the Court’.
The question of his going would arise if he is told by his
superiors or connected officers with the trial to go to the Court.
An official witness cannot be expected to attend the Court simply because
nobody had told him not to come. This has been discussed as
it shows an improper attitude in the cross-examination.
662. Kanani has been questioned during the
cross-examination as to whether he knew why the case was transferred and
what directions were given by the Supreme Court of India while ordering
retrial. Kanani has replied that he had not read the judgement of the
Supreme Court and as such, he did not have detailed information regarding
it, but that he had some knowledge about it. Interestingly, what
knowledge he had, has not been asked and the matter has been dropped there
itself by the cross-examiner.
663. PI Kanani has been extensively questioned in the
cross-examination regarding his action or reaction pursuant to the retrial
ordered by the Supreme Court. The questioning is done on the basis that
the cases are ordered to be retried because of some lacuna or
mistake in the investigation. There is no basis for such assumption; but
by assuming this, a number of questions have been put. Kanani was asked
whether he asked his superior officers or the Legal Department of the
State as to what went wrong and what was lacking in the investigation that
was carried out by him, so as to require a retrial. This type of
questioning, which is based on the assumption that retrials are ordered
because of defects in investigation and the orders of acquittal are passed
on the basis of investigation, is not proper. Cases are not decided on the
investigation or supposed lacuna in investigation, but on the basis
of sufficiency or otherwise of the evidence. The supposition or
expectation of Shri Shirodkar, as implicit in the questions, that Kanani
should go on inquiring and seeking opinion from his superior officers and
the Legal Department, as to ‘what had been lacking in the investigation’
is ridiculous. When Kanani said that he did not do so, he was then again
grilled as to why he did not do it; but in all this questioning, 3 things
are presumed.
i] Acquittals take place [only] because of defect in
investigation.
ii] Retrials are ordered [only] if the investigation is
faulty.
iii] That Kanani had formed and should have formed an
opinion that the retrial had been ordered because of some lacuna in
investigation.
664. All this is so absurd that it does not require
any further comment. In any case, Kanani has stated, when specifically
questioned about the reason for not asking the Special Public Prosecutors
as to what was the defect in the investigation, that there was no defect
at all in the investigation. Even thereafter, Kanani was questioned as
follows:
Did you, on your own, ask the Spl. P.P. that the
investigation was proper; and that there was no defect in it; and that
still, why the case had been transferred?
Here, again, it is assumed that the case could be
transferred only if the investigation was not proper and defective. Kanani
has answered that he had some knowledge as to why the case had been
transferred. Now, instead of asking what was the knowledge, the
subject is given up and no reasons, as known to Kanani regarding the
transfer of the case, have been sought from him.
665. Kanani was wrongly asked a question as to whether
he carried out further investigation after said judgement was
delivered to the Supreme Court. When he said ‘no’, it was put to him that
it was because he believed that whatever investigation had been carried
out, was proper and sufficient; and that there was no necessity of any
further investigation and he was asked to state whether it was correct or
not. Kanani has given a simple explanation of the fact – viz. that he had
been transferred to Vadodara on 01/12; and that therefore, the
investigation of the case was not with him at all when retrial was
ordered. Kanani has also rightly pointed out that in such matters, a
decision would be taken by the superior officers and not by the
Investigating Officer. The matter had gone to the Supreme Court of India
where the State of Gujarat was a party and highest police officers of the
State had appeared before the Supreme Court before it passed the order of
retrial outside the State of Gujarat. It was impossible under the
circumstances that PI Kanani would abruptly start investigation again, as
soon as he would hear about the Supreme Court of India verdict, though he
was not posted at the concerned Police Station, had no case papers with
him and though he had not been told to do so, but questions based on such
supposition have indeed been asked.
666. The questioning of PI Kanani in the
cross-examination with respect to the F.I.R. is a model of improper and
unfair questioning. Many of the questions could have been disallowed, but
in view of the claim that the Court would be satisfied about the relevancy
and the propriety of the questions which could not be disclosed at that
stage to avoid arguments, many doubtful questions were permitted.
Moreover, PI Kanani was an experienced Investigating Officer and as such,
an experienced witness who appeared to be capable of giving proper replies
to such questions, which factor was also weighed in favour of permitting
the questions. PI Kanani was asked as to whether the FIR is the
information, in respect of the commission of a cognisable offence, which
is first in point of time, to which he agreed. Now, this being a legal
question, need not have been asked, particularly when the position is not
correctly put. All the legal aspects to make it F.I.R. were not included
in the question. Questions touching the rules of evidence regarding burden
of proof were asked to him. He was asked that the burden of establishing
that a particular information was first in point of time, was on the
prosecution only. Since Kanani had earlier stated in reply to the question
as to why he did not investigate into the aspect of ‘establishing the date
and time of the lodging of the FIR’, that he did not imagine that Zahira
would turn hostile again, he was asked whether he agreed that ‘that it was
the ‘first information’, was required to be established by the prosecution
only; and that it would be immaterial whether the first informant would
turn hostile or not’. Kanani has accepted this as correct. All this
is shocking, wrong and improper. That it is required to be established by
the prosecution, does not mean that it is not required to be established
through any witnesses. In fact, there is no other way for the
prosecution, than to establish a fact relied upon by them, through their
witnesses. Kanani has properly answered that had Zahira not turned
hostile, the prosecution could have established the date and time of the
lodging of the FIR, through her evidence. In spite of such clear answer,
the matter is not given up and it was put to PI Kanani that he wanted to
claim that the burden of establishing the date and time of the lodging of
the FIR, which was on the prosecution, was thrown upon Zahira by him.
Kanani has naturally denied the suggestion, but the suggestion is absurd.
It is difficult to understand what is the concept on the part of the
cross-examiner as to how the prosecution is to discharge its burden.
The concept of the cross-examiner as apparent from this type of
questioning seems to be that the prosecution has to discharge the burden
on it without the evidence of any witnesses; and that discharging the
burden on it, does not include discharging the same by examining a witness
for the prosecution. All this is so absurd that it does not deserve any
further comment from the Court.
… … …
670. It is submitted by Shri Shirodkar that the
reasons why the Supreme Court of India transferred the case here while
ordering a retrial, are entirely irrelevant so far as proving the charges
against the accused is concerned. There can be no doubt about the
correctness of this proposition. However, a number of contentions have
been vehemently advanced during the course of arguments, which involve
comparison of the evidence of the witnesses in the previous trial and the
present one. The explanation of the concerned witnesses in that regard are
also required to be taken into consideration. Contentions have been
advanced that a fraud was played upon the Supreme Court of India in
securing an order of retrial. It has been contended that everybody is
acting under fear of the persons at whose instance the retrial came to be
ordered; and that it is due to fear of those persons and of the Supreme
Court of India, witnesses are deposing in favour of the prosecution. If it
is expected of the Court that the evidence should be appreciated in the
‘background’ of certain alleged facts, then a scrutiny of whether the
‘background’ projected and alleged facts really exist, cannot be avoided.
Why a retrial was ordered is certainly not, per se, relevant.
Relevancy is governed by the provisions of the Evidence Act. If some
issues become relevant in this case, then they cannot be overlooked only
because they touch some aspects of the previous trial, order of retrial,
reasons for the hostility of the witnesses, etc.
671. The questions posed by Shri Shirodkar, the
learned Senior Advocate, as to ‘whether the exercise of examining the
hostile witnesses at length was undertaken to prove the guilt of the
accused, or whether it was undertaken to salvage the image of Smt. Teesta
Setalvad and her organisation’, or ‘whether it was an attempt to convince
the Supreme Court of India that it was not misled by Smt. Teesta Setalvad
in transferring the trial from Gujarat to Maharashtra’, etc., etc., are
not very proper. In particular, the supposition – implicit in the question
posed – that the Supreme Court of India had started doubting the
correctness of its order and was therefore required to be convinced about
the correctness of the same, is objectionable. Even in the arguments, it
is mentioned that the accused are made sacrificial pawns in a game of
‘one-upmanship’ undertaken by Smt. Teesta Setalvad [page 5 of the written
arguments (Ex.521/A)]. Therefore, examination of the correctness of these
contentions cannot be avoided. At any rate, the relevancy thereof has been
projected by the defence only.
672. It is contended that though there have been
consistent improvements in the evidence of the witnesses who have
supported the prosecution, ‘no one has cared to ask even one question
about the source of their ‘enlightened’ evidence’. It is contended
that the failure of the prosecution has thus ‘subverted and
perverted the fairness of trial’. This contention is strange. What was
expected of the prosecution, according to the Advocates for the accused is
difficult to understand. These witnesses have been extensively
cross-examined. All possible latitude was given to the learned Advocates
in the matter of cross-examination and no attempt was made to curtail the
length of the same at any time.
… … …
689. The entire contention of the defence is devoid of
any merit whatsoever. First of all, there is absolutely no basis in
stating that the witnesses could not have seen the mob, or the persons in
the mob, from the terrace. How the view or the vision will be affected by
being on the terrace is not indicated. There is also no basis whatsoever
even for holding that sitting on the cot or ‘charpaee’ in front of the
bakery would afford a better view of the mob of rioters than the view that
could be obtained by sitting or being on the terrace of the said building.
This very supposition, which is the basis of the argument, is unfounded.
In fact, the witnesses would be able to see more from the terrace rather
than by sitting on a cot/’charpaee’ in front of the bakery. The
visibility would be certainly more from the terrace, as due to increased
height there would be less obstructions and a bigger area would be within
view.
… … …
Zahira’s statement not the ‘real’ F.I.R.?
701. I shall now consider one contention emphatically
put forward by Shri Shirodkar. According to him, Zahira Shaikh [P.W.41] is
not the first informant in the matter at all; and that her statement
[Ex.136] is not the ‘first information report’ at all. It is contended
that the real ‘first information report’ is the statement [Ex.264] of
Raees Khan [P.W.27] recorded by A.S.I. Abhaysinh Patel [P.W.66].
702. It is well settled that the F.I.R. is not a piece
of substantive evidence. It is to be used only for corroborating the
evidence given by the first informant. Since in this case Zahira Shaikh
[P.W.41] has turned hostile, the first information report [Ex.136] cannot
be made any use of for corroborating her. According to Shri Shirodkar, the
prosecution is "not willing to accept Raees Khan [P.W.27], as the ‘First
Informant’, with oblique intention." It is contended that the object of
the prosecution is to keep back the statement [Ex.264] of Raees Khan, as
that statement affects the case of prosecution adversely. Shri Shirodkar
also submitted that showing that Zahira’s statement [Ex.136] is not the
real ‘first information report’; and that actually, it is the statement
[Ex.264] of Raees Khan that is the F.I.R., is important from the point of
view of establishing that the prosecution, from the beginning, has been
dishonest; and that the investigation is tainted, which would be relevant
for the purpose of appreciating the evidence of the Investigating Officers
and even of the other witnesses.
703. The argument advanced by Shri Shirodkar on the
issue ‘which is the real F.I.R.’, is two-fold. The first is that the
statement [Ex.264] of Raees Khan was recorded prior to the recording of
Zahira’s statement, and the other is that the said statement of Raees Khan
had all the necessary ingredients to characterise the same as the ‘First
Information Report’, as contemplated under Section 154 of the Code.
704. The contention of Shri Shirodkar is that Zahira’s
statement [Ex.136] treated as F.I.R. was actually recorded on 04/03/2002
and falsely shown as having been recorded on 02/03/2002. However,
according to him, even by assuming that it was indeed recorded and
registered as F.I.R. on 02/03/2002 at 15.15 hours, it would still, not be
prior to the recording of the statement [Ex.264] of Raees Khan recorded by
A.S.I. Abhaysinh Patel [P.W.66].
705. In view of the contentions, it would be
appropriate to first consider as to when the statement [Ex.264] of Raees
was recorded. The evidence that needs to be examined in this regard is of
Raees himself, Abhaysinh [P.W.66] and Dr. Judal [P.W.70].
706. The statement [Ex.264] itself does not show at
what time it was recorded.
707. Raees Khan [P.W.27] does not admit having made
the statement at all. According to him, on 02/03/2002, police had come to
meet him in the hospital; and that the police asked him his name, address,
etc., obtained his thumb impression and left. In the cross-examination,
Raees Khan has stated that his thumb impression was taken after something
was written on that paper by the police. However, when the said document
[X-19 for identification, and later on marked as Ex.264] was shown to him
and he was questioned about the thumb impression on it, Raees stated that
the thumb impression could be his [‘may be mine’]. When questioned
specifically, Raees Khan stated that he could not say whether it was the
same document on which his thumb impression was taken. Thus, the evidence
of Raees Khan neither establishes the identity of the thumb impression on
the document [Ex.264], nor the fact that it is a statement made by Raees
Khan. According to Raees Khan, at that time, he did not say anything
about the incident to the police. Raees has specifically stated that at
that time, he was not fully conscious.
708. According to Raees, it took about 1 to 1.1/2 hour
for the police coming to him, putting questions to him, writing down on
the paper and taking his thumb impression on that paper; and that all this
was over by 12.00 noon. This time, as given by Raees Khan, is obviously
wrong in my opinion. The evidence shows that till 11.50 a.m., Panigate
Police Station had not received any information about Raees Khan and two
others being admitted in the S.S.G. Hospital. Anyway, since the evidence
of Raees Khan does not indicate that any statement of his, about the
incident, was recorded by the police on 02/03/2002, his evidence about
obtaining of his thumb impression before 12.00 noon cannot be brought in
aid to show the time of recording of the statement [Ex.264] as at 12.00
noon. The evidence of Raees Khan does not lend any support to the theory
that the statement [Ex.264] was recorded before Zahira’s
statement [Ex.136] was recorded. The evidence of Raees Khan, on the
contrary, creates a doubt whether his statement was at all recorded
on 02/03/2002.
709. The sequence of events – together with their
respective timings – leading to the recording of the statement [Ex.264] of
Raees Khan and the respective timings, is either undisputed, or is
sufficiently proved. Raees and others were admitted in Hospital. Vardi
in that regard was received at Panigate Police Station at 11.50 a.m. Then
a memo/note [Ex.263] was written by PSO Manharbhai [P.W.68] and given to
Abhaysinh [P.W.66] requiring him to go to the hospital and investigate.
Abhaysinh then went to S.S.G. Hospital. He wrote a communication [Ex.262]
addressed to the Medical Officer on duty seeking to know whether any of
the injured was, or were, in a condition to make a statement. Abhaysinh
gave the communication [Ex.262] to the doctor at about 1.00 p.m. to 1.30
p.m. Thereafter, Dr. Judal [P.W.71] made an endorsement [Ex.262/1] on the
communication [Ex.262]. In view of the endorsement that patient was not
fit, Abhaysinh waited there for some time. After about 35 to 40 minutes,
Raees became somewhat conscious when Abhaysinh recorded his statement.
710. After considering all the relevant evidence, it
cannot be doubted that the statement of Raees Khan, if at all indeed
recorded, could not have been before 3.15 p.m. Dr. Judal
[P.W.71] is specific about having made the endorsement [Ex.262/1] at 2.00
p.m. The document [Ex.262] shows the time of making the endorsement as
2.00 o’clock. Dr. Judal has been very specific that whenever such
endorsements are made, the doctors always put the correct time and date of
making such endorsement; and that they had specific instructions from
their Head of the Department to that effect. Dr. Judal had categorically
stated that in this case also, the same procedure and same instructions
were followed by him. This is quite acceptable.
… … …
714. Why then, the Advocates for the accused feel so
positive and certain about this aspect – viz. that the statement of Raees
Khan was recorded before Zahira’s statement – particularly when this fact
is neither borne out from the charge-sheet, nor is attributable to the
personal knowledge of any of the accused? It is interesting to note
that this contention has been taken up on the basis of the evidence
recorded in the previous trial. That this is so is not in dispute.
715. In the trial held at Vadodara, the statement
[Ex.264] of Raees Khan was, by consent, marked and exhibited [as Ex.180],
curiously, without examining Raees Khan as a witness. In order
to establish that the statement [Ex.264] was recorded before 3.15 p.m.,
the deposition of Abhaysinh Patel [P.W.66], as recorded during the earlier
trial, has been tendered in evidence and has been marked as Ex.265. The
following statements made by Abhaysinh Patel in his deposition recorded in
the previous trial have been brought on record:
"It is true that till I returned to the police station
with the statement marked exhibit 180, Police Inspector Shri Baria had not
come to S.S.G. Hospital." [Portion marked as A/131]. When I went to
the police station with the statement marked Ex.180, I learnt from P.S.O.
that no offence is yet registered in this respect." [Portion marked as
A/127].
Thus, the claim of the statement of Raees Khan having been
recorded prior to Zahira’s, has been made only on the basis of the above
statements of Abhaysinh, as found in his deposition before the Sessions
Court at Vadodara, in the previous trial. Abhaysinh has denied having made
these statements. When confronted with the statement in portion marked
A/131 [reproduced earlier], he stated that this portion was not correctly
recorded. As regards the portion A/127 also, Abhaysinh has stated that he
never stated so. Abhaysinh also stated that his deposition recorded in the
Court at Vadodara was not read over to him. Abhaysinh was then
contradicted on that aspect also by pointing out the endorsement made by
the Court [portion A/125] on the record of his deposition in the said
trial which reads as under:
"Read out before me and as the same is admitted, it is
taken on record."
Abhaysinh disputed the correctness of this endorsement
also. A question, much to the embarrassment of Abhaysinh, was put in his
cross-examination as to ‘whether he meant that the Judge had falsely
recorded the portion marked A/127’, to which Abhaysinh replied as ‘that I
cannot say’.
716. Thus, Abhaysinh has denied the fact of having
made these statements [portions marked A/131 and A/125] and also truth of
the facts conveyed by these statements. There is a presumption that all
judicial acts are regularly performed. Since the authenticity of the
record of the trial held at Vadodara is not in dispute, the fact that
Abhaysinh did not state so before the Court of Vadodara, cannot be
accepted. Though the bare denial of Abhaysinh cannot be accepted and it is
to be held that Abhaysinh did make the said statements before the
Court at Vadodara, the crucial aspect of the matter is ‘whether the
said statements are true’.
717. The evidential value of these statements should
be considered here. In my opinion, the legal position that these
statements being previous inconsistent statements made by Abhaysinh, only
constitute a ground for disbelieving his present testimony; and that they
are certainly not the evidence of the facts which are stated therein,
cannot be doubted. It is one thing to hold that Abhaysinh is not to be
believed or trusted as regards the time of recoding the statement of Raees
Khan, as given by him in his testimony before this Court, in view of the
said statements made by him during the previous trial, but it is quite
another to treat those statements, which he now repudiates, as a
substitute for his present testimony. In view of this legal position,
the only question that remains is whether Abhaysinh could be trusted as
regards the time of recording the statement of Raees Khan so as to hold
his testimony before the Court as true, in spite of the said previous
statements made by him.
718. The aforesaid discussion and the record of
various entries contemporaneously made, leaves no manner of doubt that the
statement [Ex.264] of Raees could not have been recorded before 2.45 p.m.,
by which time, Zahira’s statement [Ex.136] was already recorded, according
to PI Baria. Assuming Abhaysinh had given evidence in the Court at
Vadodara suggesting that the statement of Raees was recorded much prior to
3.15 p.m., then all that can be said is that it is proved to be factually
wrong and incorrect. As such, this does not establish the contention of
the learned Advocates for the accused.
719. In view of all this, I only briefly mention a
flaw in the contention that the statement of Raees is the F.I.R. It would
not have been F.I.R. even if it would have been recorded prior to the
statement [Ex.136] of Zahira. It is because one of the requirements for
any information to be the F.I.R. is that such information should be given
to the Officer In-Charge of the police station. Abhaysinh was not the
‘Officer In-Charge’ of the police station. This is mentioned just by the
way because in any case, I am of the opinion that the statement [Ex.264]
of Raees, if at all recorded, was certainly not recorded before
recording Zahira’s statement [Ex.136].
720. However, it has also been contended by Shri
Shirodkar that Zahira’s statement [Ex.136] was not recorded at all on
02/03/2002; and that actually, it was recorded on 04/03/2002.
721. The basis for such a claim is only that a copy of
the F.I.R. was received by the Magistrate on 05/03/2002. Interestingly,
the fact that a copy of the F.I.R. received by the Magistrate only on
05/03/2002, is not borne out from any record or evidence adduced in this
case, but it was based on an admission made by PI Kanani [P.W.74] in the
previous trial. Even the said admission was based not on Kanani’s personal
knowledge, but on the basis of a document shown to him while in witness
box. What was that document, cannot be ascertained from the record.
Anyway, it is on the basis of the admission of PI Kanani, obtained in this
manner in the previous trial, PI Kanani was made to admit this fact in the
present trial also. This admission is the only evidence to show that a
copy of the FIR was received by the Magistrate on 05/03/2002.
722. It may be observed that the question of time and
date of recording of the F.I.R. assumes importance in many cases for the
purpose of appreciating the evidence. If it is established that the F.I.R.
had been lodged immediately after the occurrence, it strengthens the case
of the prosecution showing that the information contained in it was
available immediately and thereby reduces the possibility of concoction,
fabrication, etc. When the time of lodging of the First Information Report
would be in dispute, the issue as to when a copy of the same was received
by the Magistrate under Section 157 of the Code assumes importance. Under
Section 157 of the Code, an Inspector In-Charge of a police station is
required to forward a report [commonly called as ‘occurrence report’] to
the concerned Magistrate forthwith. It is common knowledge that usually
the report is sent in the form of a copy of the F.I.R. as it gives all the
necessary details to the Magistrate. The delay in sending a report to the
Magistrate is relevant for ascertaining whether the F.I.R. had indeed been
lodged at the time when it is claimed to have been lodged.
723. A number of authoritative pronouncements of the
Supreme Court of India and of the High Court have been cited on the effect
of delay in sending the F.I.R. to the Magistrate, by the learned Spl.
P.P., as also by the learned Advocates for the accused. It is not
necessary to make any reference to the authorities as the legal position
is well settled. The delay in sending the F.I.R. to the Magistrate may
create a doubt in the mind of the Court whether the time of lodging the
F.I.R. as claimed is indeed correct. In such cases, the possibility of the
F.I.R. having been lodged subsequently or having been tampered with is
required to be kept in mind. However, it cannot even remotely be suggested
that the time of lodging the F.I.R. has to be proved only from the fact of
the time of its receipt by the Magistrate, though being an external check
of an authentic nature, it would assume importance. All that can be said
is that receipt of the copy of the F.I.R. by a Magistrate is a surer way
of establishing that by that time, the F.I.R. had already been lodged.
724. In the instant case, it is not in dispute at all
that the police had come to the scene of offence itself and in fact, that
is how the incident ended. The victims – including Zahira – were with the
police on the spot itself and even thereafter in the hospital. The
suggestion that no F.I.R. was lodged at that time is too ridiculous to be
taken seriously. It is a different matter to contend that the previous
document had been fraudulently altered or suppressed, but it is quite
another to say that no F.I.R. had been lodged at all till 05/03/2002. In
this case, the evidence of PI Baria [P.W.72] and Head Constable
Jagdishbhai Choudhary [P.W.70] is fully corroborated by the entries
[Ex.278] made in the station house diary. In the circumstances of the
case, when the victims were with the police and the police had taken
cognisance of the happening of such an incident that they would omit to
record the F.I.R. is something which is unacceptable. The entries in the
station house diary do have continuity and even if one would want to
manipulate the same, the manipulation that would be possible can only be
limited. A statement recorded on 04/03/2002 cannot be certainly shown as
having recorded on 02/03/2002.
… … …
727. Coming to the point, so far as the present case
is concerned, the delay in receipt of the F.I.R. by the Magistrate is
satisfactorily explained. I avoid discussion on the lengthy
cross-examination of PI Kanani on this aspect, which is proved to be
irrelevant. It may only be observed that PI Kanani has given fitting
replies to various uncalled for questions and his cross-examination on
that point has failed to establish that the delay in receipt of F.I.R. by
the Magistrate was due to the fact that it had been sent late; and that
late sending was because, earlier, it was not in existence at all. The
evidence of PI Baria [P.W.72] clearly establishes that the duty Constable
had gone to the Magistrate on 03/03/2002 and at that time, he had taken
the copy of the F.I.R. to the Magistrate. PI Baria has said that due to
the riots that were going on in Vadodara, Curfew was in force, the Courts
were closed and all the arrested accused in Vadodara city were being
produced before a single Magistrate who was by being at the circuit house,
receiving all the correspondence addressed to all the Magistrates. In the
situation that was prevailing at the material time, the normal working of
the Court or Magistrate was certainly affected as clearly stated by PI
Baria and therefore, if the acknowledgement shows date 05/03/2002 as date
of receipt of the F.I.R., it does not necessarily follow therefrom that it
had been sent to the Magistrate on the same day. In any case, there is
much other evidence to show that the F.I.R. had been lodged on 02/03/2002
itself and the copies of the same were sent to superior police officers.
728. I have no hesitation to conclude that the
contention that the F.I.R. [EX.136] was recorded only on 04/03/2002 has no
substance at all. The evidence about its time and date is convincing and
reliable. It cannot be overlooked that the police having visited the scene
of the offence and having come in contact with the victims, having
admitted the injured in the hospital, having drawn inquest panchanamas in
respect of dead bodies, could not have afforded not to record the F.I.R.
Further, that the statement of Raees is the actual F.I.R. and that it was
being suppressed, is also without any substance. It may be observed that
if the entire thing was to be manipulated, as suggested by the learned
Advocates for the accused, the information in Ex.136 could have been
incorporated in the statement of Raees also. It is not as if only by
lending the name of Zahira to a concocted and manufactured statement that
the investigating agency could succeed in their alleged wicked design of
implicating the accused. It could be done by projecting somebody else
– Raees also – as the first informant. The whole contention based on the
alleged attempt of the prosecution to suppress the statement of Raees is
unsound. The question is, if it was to be suppressed, why was it
included in the charge-sheet? In fact, it appears to me that the
statement of Raees is probably not a genuine record at all. I shall now
discuss the reasons for holding this view, one by one.
a] After going to S.S.G. Hospital, Abhaysinh [P.W.66]
gave the communication [Ex.262] in order to let him know whether the
injured were in a position to give statement or not [the discrepancy in
the name of Raees who has been referred to as ‘Rafiq’ in this
communication is immaterial and the identity is established from the E.P.R.
number. In fact, no dispute on this has been raised.]. Dr. Judal [P.W.71]
made endorsement [Ex.262/a] to the effect that ‘patient is not fit to
give DD at present’. This endorsement was made at 2.00 p.m. According
to Abhaysinh, after having waited in the hospital for sometime, he
recorded the statement of Raees as by that time, he had become ‘somewhat’
conscious. The plausibility of this version needs to be examined. It
does not seem likely that Abhaysinh would record a statement of Raees
without again consulting the doctor. He had an endorsement with him to
the effect that the patient was not fit and if in spite of such
endorsement, he would record the statement of the same person without
again referring the matter back to the doctor, the value of the statement
would be open to challenge. This Abhaysinh would be expected to know.
b] This is particularly so because the document
[Ex.262] itself shows that the Medical Officer was requested ‘to kindly
inform the police station on telephone as and when the patients would be
in a condition to give statement’. Thus, the intention of Abhaysinh is
clear. He wants to record the statement of the patient only after he would
be certified to be fit for that purpose. He wants the doctor to inform the
police station as soon as the concerned persons would be in a condition to
give the statements. This portion [A/128] in Ex.262 was specifically put
to Abhaysinh in the cross-examination and he admitted that as per the said
portion, his expectation was that the doctor should inform when any of the
said persons injured would be in a position to make a statement, by
telephoning to the Panigate Police Station. When this was the position,
it is difficult to accept that Abhaysinh would thereafter record the
statement on his own, without waiting for the medical opinion. In
fact, the portion A/128 is indicative of Abhaysinh’s intention not to wait
any longer at the Hospital.
c] A further doubt is felt because of the failure of
Abhaysinh to obtain an endorsement from the doctor even after recording
the statement [Ex.264]. It was possible for him to contact Dr. Judal or
any other doctor after he had recorded the statement [Ex.264] of Raees and
get confirmation from the doctor of his being conscious and fit to make
the statement at that point of time.
d] The contents of the statement [Ex.264] also make me
doubt the authenticity and genuineness thereof.
The statement shows that Raees told Abhaysinh that ‘they
were brought to government hospital turn by turn’. He is supposed to have
further stated, "presently, I am in D/4 ward and Cot No. 12 for medical
treatment and presently, I am under medical treatment and I am in fully
conscious state’. In the condition in which Raees was at that time, it
is difficult to believe that he would know and give the details of the
ward number, cot number, etc. Raees, admittedly, has not been able to give
the names of his colleagues. The other two persons who are mentioned in
the relevant vardi are Sailun [E.P.R.No.1717] and Ramesh @ Raju
[E.P.R.No.1718]. The vardi that was received by Rameshbhai [P.W.16]
from Dr. Meena Robin [P.W.46] shows that only the name of Raees was
ascertained [though wrongly described as ‘Rafiq’] and the other two whose
names were not revealed at that time. They were described as ‘unknown’. In
other words, Raees had not been able to give their names. That the person
who could not give the names of his colleagues would be able to give the
ward number and cot number is difficult to believe.
e] According to Abhaysinh [P.W.66], the statement
[Ex.264] of Raees and the communication [Ex.262] to the Medical Officer
was handed over by him to PI Baria on 10/03/2002 along with the hospital
vardi [Ex.263]. In the cross-examination, it has been brought on
record that the endorsement [Ex.263/1] which is in respect of handing over
the documents, does not speak of the statement [Ex.264] of Raees and the
communication [Ex.262] to the Medical Officer also being returned along
with the document [Ex.263]. What the endorsement shows is that only the
document [Ex.263] was being returned. According to Abhaysinh, he handed
over all the papers together but while writing, a mention of the other
documents remained to be made. Thus, the entry does now show that the
statement of Raees and the communication to Medical Officer containing his
endorsement was also returned to the police station on 10/03/2002. This
has been brought on record by the defence. However, what they expect to be
inferred from this is not the same that I think to be the proper
inference. According to Mr. Shirodkar, since the endorsement
[Ex.263/1], which is dated 10/03/2002, does not show the statement of
Raees and the communication of doctor also being returned along with the
document [Ex.263] the documents [Ex.262 and Ex.264] must have already been
handed over to the police station on 02/03/2002. I am unable to come
to such a conclusion. If the endorsement [Ex.263/1] does not show that
the statement [Ex.264] of Raees and the communication [Ex.262] to doctor
were being returned on 10/03/2002, the inference may be that they were not
being returned along with the document [Ex.263]; but the inference will
not be that they had been returned on 02/03/2002 itself. It does
not seem likely that Abhaysinh would preserve the document [Ex.263] which
contained a direction to him to go and investigate, but would not preserve
the documents which came in existence pursuant to the said direction given
to him. It is on the basis of direction contained in Ex.263 that he
goes to the hospital, communicates with the doctor, obtains endorsement of
the doctor, records statement of Raees and then hands over simply the
statement of Raees and the communication of doctor to the P.S.O. on
02/03/2002 while preserving with him the document containing direction to
him, is difficult to accept. As a matter of fact, without the document
Ex.263 it would be difficult to understand what the documents Ex.262 and
Ex.263 are. In what connection, the statement Ex.264 had been recorded
could not be understood at all without the document [Ex.263] and
therefore, he would only hand over Ex.262 and Ex.264 to the P.S.O., on
02/03/2002 and would retain with him Ex.263, cannot be accepted. In my
opinion, in all probability, the statement of Raees was not in existence
at all and all that Abhaysinh had done was to secure his thumb impression
so that in case of his death, it could be used as a dying declaration.
This is clear from his evidence whereby he expected to record a dying
declaration. Thus, I do agree that the statement of Raees was probably not
returned to PI Baria on 10/03/2002, but I refuse to draw an inference
therefrom that it had already been returned on 02/03/2002.
This view is strengthened by the fact that the condition
of Raees does not appear to be such that his statement could be recorded.
At 2 o’clock, Dr. Judal had declared him to be unfit. In his evidence, PI
Baria [P.W.72] has also stated that on 02/03/2002, he could not record the
statements of any of the injured as none of them were in a position to
make a statement. PI Baria had categorically stated that he went to D/4
ward but none of the injured was in a condition to make any statement
[page 2244 of the N.O.E.]. This is consistent with the evidence of Dr.
Judal. Under these circumstances, for a short while, Raees became alright
so that Abhaysinh could record his statement, is difficult to believe.
729. My conclusions, as a result of a careful
consideration of the contentions and analysis of the evidence in that
regard, are as follows:
i] There is no substance in the contention that the
statement [Ex.264] of Raees was recorded before recording the statement
[Ex.136] of Zahira.
ii] The statement of Zahira had been recorded on
02/03/2002 itself and there is no substance in the contention that the
statement of Zahira had been recorded on 04/03/2002. The basis for this
contention is only the receipt of the occurrence report by the Magistrate
on 05/03/2002, and the evidence regarding the date of receipt is only
Kanani’s admission to that effect, which again is based on his admission
made during previous trial. The admission during the previous trial was
based not on Kanani’s knowledge of the fact admitted, but on the basis of
some document [not marked] shown to him while in the witness box.
iii] The contention that the prosecution was
deliberately not bringing forward the statement of Raees as the F.I.R. is
also without any substance.
iv] On the contrary, the statement [Ex.264] of Raees
appears to be not a true or genuine record at all. It had probably not
been recorded at all on 02/03/2002 and in any case, Raees was not in a
condition to make a proper statement on 02/03/2002.
v] There was no intention on the part of the
investigating agency to ‘suppress’ the statement of Raees in as
much as they have included the same in the charge-sheet.
vi] Zahira having turned hostile, there was not much
to be bothered for the learned Advocates for the accused whether her
statement was made first or statement of Raees was made first. This
contention appears to have been taken and stretched to an extraordinary
length because of the need felt to support the theory of Zahira not having
complained at all, Zahira not having expressed any grievance about the
trial at all and Zahira not having sought any retrial at all.
… … …
732. What cannot be lost sight of is the fact
that it was not necessary for the investigating agency to have falsely
projected Zahira as the first informant. The contention is that
the FIR which gives the names of some of the accused as the offenders is
concocted and is a creation of PI Baria. This contention is one of those,
which, when tested by ordinary experience and intelligence appear so
improbable that they are to be forthwith rejected. If PI Baria wanted to
do all this manipulation, why could he not insert the same matter in the
statement [Ex.264] of Raees, is something about which no comments are
offered by the learned Advocates for the accused. An examination of the
evidence has revealed how the contention about Raees being the first
informant and the prosecution dishonestly suppressing the real F.I.R. to
make Zahira the first informant, is imaginary and baseless. In fact, the
truth appears to be that a concocted and bogus statement of Raees was
inserted in the charge-sheet, which was definitely not done for falsely
implicating the accused.
_________________________________
Unlawful
assembly? AND ITS object?
... ... ...
733. It is submitted that the identity of the unlawful
assembly as the same that was in the night and in the morning, is not
established. According to him (Shri Jambaulikar, Advocate for Accused Nos.
1 to 5, 10, 11 and 12), since when the police came in the night the mob
fled away and gathered again after the police went, there were two
separate unlawful assemblies. It is submitted that the ‘object’ of
the unlawful assembly has to be determined with respect to each such
assembly that was formed during the period from the night to morning.
734. The contention of there being different
assemblies in the night and in the morning is advanced on the basis that ‘there
is no evidence to show that every member of the unlawful assembly
was continuously present therein from night till morning’. I am not
impressed by this contention. Unlawful assembly is defined in Section 141
of the I.P.C. An assembly of five or more persons actuated by and
entertaining one or more of the common objects specified by the five
clauses of the said section is an unlawful assembly. If the relevant
provisions are studied and the object behind the same is grasped, it is
clear that the possibility of the composition of the unlawful assembly
changing during the period its members commit offences, always exists. It
cannot be assumed, while speaking of an unlawful assembly, that at no
point of time, its composition would change; and that all the members
forming it, would remain the same till it is finally dissolved. It cannot
be suggested that even if a single person from an assembly of – say 1,000
to 1,200 persons – changes, there comes into existence another unlawful
assembly. The composition of the unlawful assembly might change, but
still, the unlawful assembly would be the same, capable of being
identified as such. It is the continuity and identity of common object
that would determine whether the unlawful assembly is the same or not, and
not whether each and every person constituting it was same all the time.
In any case, this is rather academic. Every member of an unlawful assembly
would be guilty of offences committed in prosecution of the common object
of the assembly only if at the time of committing of those offences he
would be a member of the same. Thus, I fail to see how the change in
the composition of the assembly would make any difference in the penal
liability to be fastened on an individual accused, because, for fastening
such liability on him, it must be shown that he was a member of the
unlawful assembly at the time when the offence in question was committed.
735. In the instant case, there is evidence not only
of the supporting witnesses but even of the hostile witnesses, including
Smt. Jyotsnaben Bhatt [P.W.43] and Kanchan Mali [P.W.44] – that the mob
that assembled in the night never went away. That, it continued to remain
there throughout the night till the incident itself terminated by the
arrival of the police in the morning. In this case, the common object of
the unlawful assembly is not in doubt or dispute at all. The object is
made clear by the slogans which they were giving and the acts which they
committed. It is also clear from the motive that is behind the offences in
question. There is an identity of the object of the unlawful assembly
right from the night till the morning. It is not possible to hold that
there were different assemblies in the night and in the morning, though it
is perfectly possible that the composition of the assembly was not exactly
the same and identical throughout the period. In my opinion, even if there
would be a number of changes in the composition, still, it is to be
treated as a single unlawful assembly by reason of the continuity of its
activities and identity of the object. Further, there might be temporary
absence of some of its members and in some cases a particular member of
the assembly might not be present at all in the morning. As aforesaid, it,
however, is immaterial in as much as if an accused is to be held guilty
for the offences that were committed in the morning, that he was present
in the unlawful assembly at that time, is required to be established. If
this is not established, then that accused who was present only in the
night and had left the unlawful assembly in the night itself would not be
punishable for the offences committed by the members of the unlawful
assembly in the morning. The moment a member disassociates from the
membership of the unlawful assembly, his responsibility or liability for
the acts committed by the unlawful assembly thereafter comes to an end;
and therefore, the anxiety or apprehension that an accused would be
wrongly held liable for the acts done by the unlawful assembly in the
morning, though he himself had left the unlawful assembly in the night
itself is uncalled for. Whether a particular accused had left the
membership of the unlawful assembly at a particular point, is however a
question of fact to be decided, like any other matter, on the basis of
evidence in that regard.
736. Interestingly, in this case, the members of the
unlawful assembly have committed capital offences, both in the night as
well as in the morning. Apart from the fact that Kausarali and Lulla
appear to have been murdered in the night, the act of setting on fire a
dwelling house occupied by several persons is indicative of an intention –
or at least the knowledge – necessary to constitute the offence of murder,
in case of death being caused, on account of the fire so set.
737. Another argument – somewhat connected with the
earlier argument – is that the object of the unlawful assembly in the
night might be only to set fire to the building and not to kill anyone. In
support of this, a contention is advanced as ‘why the members of unlawful
assembly did not go up and kill the inmates’. The argument is that if the
object of the unlawful assembly was to kill, then nothing would have
prevented them from going up and killing the inmates, to achieve or
accomplish the object. This argument is without any force. An unlawful
assembly, though does possess a common and unlawful object, is not
necessarily governed by any fixed and planned programme. It does not
necessarily have one Commander who takes the decisions, as in the case of
a legal force such as police force. The object is common and it is to be
accomplished, but the methods are, to a large extent, left to the members
concerned, to be decided on the basis of what would happen on the spot. It
is in evidence that it was not easy for a large number of persons to enter
inside the Best Bakery building at one time. The passage for making entry,
which was by the side of the main gate, was, admittedly, narrow. Though
the rioters were in a big number, those who would enter from that passage,
or any other door or window, certainly ran the risk of being attacked by
the inmates. It would be therefore much easier for them to set the entire
building on fire for the purpose of achieving the object. Again, it must
be remembered that there was no specific object to kill any specific
person or specific number of persons; and setting the house on fire was
the easiest and most convenient way of causing danger to the inmates with
minimum danger to the rioters themselves. It would also additionally cause
damage to the property itself and create more terrible impact or fear in
the minds of all concerned. The argument that, ‘that they only set the
whole building on fire but did not go inside and kill the inmates, shows
that the object of the unlawful assembly was not to kill’, is ridiculous.
It was a dwelling house and as the evidence shows, the members of the
unlawful assembly were clearly aware that a number of persons had been
trapped in the house. It is, in spite of this that the whole house was set
on fire. Keeping in mind the ingredients of the offence of murder, it
cannot be said that the object of the unlawful assembly was not to take
away the lives of any persons, but merely to set on fire the building. The
weapons possessed by them are also indicative of the object.
738. It also cannot be ignored that communal riots
started as a reaction caused by the belief that kaar-sevaks had
been burnt to death by Muslims. The riots are said to be a
retaliatory action and therefore, there is nothing surprising if method of
burning is adopted for killing people.
739. Psychologists have indicated that to burn anyone
to death is an easy form of murder. It does not need a weapon and there is
no evidence left behind. This is the easiest way to inflict pain and there
is no physical contact between the assailant and the victim. The argument
advanced by Shri Jambaulikar, is therefore, without any merit.
740. It is next contended the object was not, ‘to kill
Muslims’ and that, this is clear from the evidence of Lal Mohammad
[P.W.36]. It is contended that the evidence of Lal Mohammad [P.W.36]
should be accepted in its entirety, the same being absolutely truthful. It
is contended, that if the object was to kill Muslims, how Lal Mohammad
[P.W.36] was spared? I am not impressed by this argument either. It is
clear from Lal Mohammad’s [P.W.36] own evidence that he did not come in
contact with the members of the unlawful assembly, at any rate, while
the assembly was committing acts to accomplish its objects. It is not that
any individual member of the assembly would instantly kill any Muslim as
soon as such Muslim would come in contact with him. It is only when the
collective action of the assembly is taking place and where he is
supported by numerous other persons, that he would be instigated to commit
such acts. It is well recognised that when an individual is a part of the
mob he loses his identity and takes on the identity of the mob. This is
termed as de-individualisation by psychologists and once this sets
in, any person, however mild or aggressive he may be, does what the mob
does. This is often witnessed during riots. An individual comes up with
the strongest possible expression on such occasions only while in the mob
of rioters. As such, nothing turns on the fact that Dinesh, though came in
contact with Lal Mohammad and others, did not kill them. Even otherwise,
this would be relevant only for determination whether Dinesh – Accused No.
15 – was indeed a member of the unlawful assembly and this aspect will be
considered at an appropriate place; but Lal Mohammad’s [P.W.36] evidence
cannot be interpreted in a manner so as to suggest that the object of the
unlawful assembly was not ‘to kill Muslims’. The absurdity of this
contention can be made more clear by addressing the question as to why
were the Muslims, then, attacked?
|