Zahira
Habibulla H Sheikh and Anr Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors [2004] Insc 250 (12 April 2004)
Doraiswamy
Raju & Arijit Pasayat
(Arising
out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 538-541/2004) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.450-452/2004
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 1039-1041/2004) ARIJIT PASAYAT,J
Leave
granted.
The
present appeals have several unusual features and some of them pose very
serious questions of far reaching consequences. The case is commonly to be
known as "Best Bakery Case". One of the appeals is by Zahira who claims
to be an eye-witness to macabre killings allegedly as a result of communal
frenzy. She made statements and filed affidavits after completion of trial and
judgment by the trial Court, alleging that during trial she was forced to
depose falsely and turn hostile on account of threats and coercion. That raises
an important issue regarding witness protection besides the quality and
credibility of the evidence before Court. The other rather unusual question
interestingly raised by the State of Gujarat itself relates to improper conduct of trial by the public prosecutor.
Last, but not the least that the role of the investigating agency itself was
perfunctory and not impartial. Though its role is perceived differently by the
parties, there is unanimity in their stand that it was tainted, biased and not
fair. While the accused persons accuse it for alleged false implication, the
victims' relatives like Zahira allege its efforts to be merely to protect the
accused.
The
appeals are against judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
956 of 2003 upholding acquittal of respondents-accused by the trial Court.
Along with said appeal, two other petitions namely Criminal Miscellaneous
Application No. 10315 of 2003 and Criminal Revision No. 583 of 2003 were
disposed of. The prayers made by the State for adducing additional evidence
under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the
'Code'), and/or for directing retrial were rejected. Consequentially, prayer
for examination of witnesses under Section 311 of the Code was also rejected.
In a
nutshell the prosecution version which led to trial of the accused persons is
as follows:
Between
8.30 p.m. of 1.3.2002 and 11.00 a.m. of 2.3.2002, a business concern known as "Best
Bakery" at Vadodara was burnt down by an unruly mob of large number of
people. In the ghastly incident 14 persons died. The attacks were stated to be
a part of retaliatory action to avenge killing of 56 persons burnt to death in
the Sabarmati Express. Zahira was the main eye-witness who lost family members
including helpless women and innocent children in the gruesome incident. Many
persons other than Zahira were also eye-witnesses. Accused persons were the
perpetrators of the crime. After investigation charge sheet was filed in June
2002.
During
trial the purported eye-witnesses resiled from the statements made during
investigation. Faulty and biased investigation as well as perfunctory trial
were said to have marred the sanctity of the entire exercise undertaken to
bring the culprits to books. By judgment dated 27.6.2003, the trial Court
directed acquittal of the accused persons.
Zahira
appeared before National Human Rights Commission (in short the 'NHRC') stating
that she was threatened by powerful politicians not to depose against the
accused persons. On 7.8.2003 an appeal not up to the mark and neither in
conformity with the required care, appears to have been filed by the State
against the judgment of acquittal before the Gujarat High Court. NHRC moved
this Court and its Special leave petition has been treated as a petition under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution'). Zahira
and another organisation - Citizens for Justice and Peace filed SLP (Crl.) No.
3770 of 2003 challenging judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. One Sahera
Banu (sister of appellant-Zahira) filed the afore-noted Criminal Revision No.
583 of 2003 before the High Court questioning the legality of the judgment
returning a verdict of acquittal.
Appellant-State
filed an application (Criminal Misc. Application NO.7677 of 2003) in terms of
Sections 391 and 311 of the Code for permission to adduce additional evidence
and for examination of certain persons as witness. Criminal Miscellaneous
Application No. 9825 of 2003 was filed by the State to bring on record a
document and to treat it as corroborative piece of evidence. By the impugned
judgment the appeal, revision and the applications were dismissed and rejected.
The
State and Zahira had requested for a fresh trial primarily on the following
grounds:
When a
large number of witnesses have turned hostile it should have raised a
reasonable suspicion that the witnesses were being threatened or coerced. The
public prosecutor did not take any step to protect the star witness who was to
be examined on 17.5.2003 specially when four out of seven injured witnesses had
on 9.5.2003 resiled from the statements made during investigation. Zahira
Sheikh - the Star witness had specifically stated on affidavit about the threat
given to her and the reason for her not coming out with the truth during her
examination before Court on 17.5.2003.
The
public prosecutor was not acting in a manner befitting the position held by
him. He even did not request the Trial court for holding the trial in camera
when a large number of witnesses were resiling from the statements made during
investigation.
The
trial court should have exercised power under section 311 of the Code and
recalled and re-examined witnesses as their evidence was essential to arrive at
the truth and a just decision in the case. The power under Section 165 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short the 'Evidence Act') was not resorted to at
all and that also had led to miscarriage of justice.
The
public prosecutor did not examine the injured witnesses. Exhibit 36/68 was
produced by the public prosecutor which is a statement of one Rahish Khan on
the commencement of the prosecution case, though the prosecution was neither
relying on it nor it was called upon by the accused, to be produced before the
Court. The said statement was wrongly allowed to be exhibited and treated as
FIR by the public prosecutor.
Statement
of one eye-witness was recorded on 4.3.2002 by P1 Baria at SSG Hospital, Vadodara
disclosing names of five accused persons and when he was sought to be examined
before the Court, summons were issued to this person on 27.4.2003 for
examination on 9.5.2003. It could not be served on the ground that he had left
for his native place in Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, fresh summons were issued on
9.6.2003 for recording his evidence on the next day i.e. on 10.6.2003, giving
only one day time. When it could not be served, then summons were issued on
13.6.2003 for remaining present before the Court on 16.6.2003. It could not be
also served for the same reasons. Ultimately, the public prosecutor gave purshis
for dropping him as witness and surprisingly the same was granted by the Trial
court. This goes to show that both the public prosecutor as well as the court
were not only oblivious but also failed to discharge their duties. An important
witness was not examined by the prosecutor on the ground that he, Sahejadkhan Hasankhan
(PW- 48) was of unsound mind. Though the witness was present, the public
prosecutor dropped him on the ground that he was not mentally fit to depose.
When such an application was made by the prosecution for dropping on the ground
of mental deficiency it was the duty of the learned trial Judge to at least
make some minimum efforts to find out as to whether he was actually of unsound
mind or not, by getting him examined from the Civil Surgeon or a doctor from
the Psychiatric Department. This witness (PW-48) has received serious injuries
and the doctor Meena (PW-9) examined him. She has not stated in her evidence
that he was mentally deficient.
The
police has also not reported that this witness was of unsound mind. During
investigation also it was never stated that he was of unsound mind. His
statement was recorded on 6.3.2002.
Sahejadkhan
Hasankhan - the witness was unconscious between 2nd - 6th of March 2002. When
he regained conscious, his statement was recorded on 6.3.2002. He gave names of
four accused persons i.e. A-5, A-6, A-8 and A-11.
This
witness has also filed an affidavit before this Court in a pending matter
narrating the whole incident. This clearly shows that the person was not of
unsound mind as was manipulated by the prosecution to drop him.
In the
case of one Shailun Hasankhan Pathan summons were issued on 9.6.2003 requiring
his presence on 10.6.2003 which could not be served on him. He disclosed the
names of three accused persons i.e. A-6, A-8 and A-11. This witness was also
surprisingly treated to be of deficient mind without any material and even
without taking any efforts to ascertain the truth or otherwise of such serious
claims.
Similarly,
one injured eye-witness Tufel Habibulla Sheikh was not examined, though he had
disclosed the names of four accused i.e. A-5, A-6, A-8 and A-11. No summons was
issued to this witness and he was not at all examined.
Another
eye witness Yasminbanu who had disclosed the names of A-5,A-6 and A-11 was also
not examined. No reason whatsoever was disclosed for non-examination of this
witness.
The
affidavit filed by different witnesses before this Court highlighted as to how
and why they have been kept unfairly out of trial. Lalmohamad Khudabax Shaikh
(PW 15) was hurriedly examined on 27.5.2003 though summons was issued to him
for remaining present on 6.6.2003. No reason has been indicated as to why he
was examined before the date stipulated.
Strangely
the relatives of the accused were examined as witnesses for the prosecution
obviously with a view that their evidence could be used to help the accused
persons.
According
to the appellant-Zahira there was no fair trial and the entire effort during
trial and at all relevant times before also was to see that the accused persons
got acquitted. When the investigating agency helps the accused, the witnesses
are threatened to depose falsely and prosecutor acts in a manner as if he was
defending the accused, and the Court was acting merely as an onlooker and there
is no fair trial at all, justice becomes the victim.
According
to Mr. Sibal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Zahira, the High
Court has not considered the stand taken by the appellant and the State of
Gujarat in the proper perspective. Essentially, two contentions were raised by
the State before the High Court, in addition to the application filed by the
appellant-Zahira highlighting certain serious infirmities in the entire
exercise undertaken. The State had made prayers for acceptance of certain
evidence under Section 391 of the Code read with Section 311 of the Code. So
far as the acceptance of additional evidence is concerned, the same related to
affidavits filed by some injured witnesses who on account of circumstances
indicated in the affidavits were forced not to tell the truth before the trial
Court, making justice a casualty. The affidavits in essence also highlighted
the atmosphere that prevailed in the trial Court. The affidavits in fact were
not intended to be used as the evidence. A prayer was made that the witnesses
who had filed affidavits before this Court should be examined, so that the
truth can be brought on record. The High Court surprisingly accepted the
extreme stand of learned counsel for the accused persons that under Section 386
of the Code the Court can only peruse the record of the case brought before it
in terms of Section 385(2) of the Code and the appeal has to be decided on the
basis of such record only and no other record can be entertained or taken into
consideration while deciding the appeal. It was the stand of learned counsel
for the accused before the High Court that by an indirect method certain
materials were sought to be brought on record which should not be permitted.
The High Court while belittling and glossing over the serious infirmities and
pitfalls in the investigation as well as trial readily accepted the said stand
and held that an attempt was being made to bring on record the affidavits by an
indirect method, though they were not part of the record of the trial Court. It
further held that no one including the State can be allowed to take advantage
of its own wrong and thereby make capricious exercise of powers in favour of
the prosecution to fill in the lacuna, overlooking completely the obligation
cast on the Courts also to ensure that the truth should not become a casualty
and substantial justice is not denied to victims as well. With reference to
these conclusions it was submitted that the High Court did not keep in view the
true scope and ambit of Section 391 as also the need or desirability to resort
to Section 311 of the Code and virtually rendered the provisions otiose by
nullifying the very object behind those provisions. The conclusion that the
appeal can be decided only on the basis of records brought before the High
Court in terms of Section 385(2) would render Section 391 of the Code and other
allied powers conferred upon Courts to render justice completely nugatory.
Further,
after having held that the affidavits were not to be taken on record, the High
Court has recorded findings regarding contents of those affidavits, and has
held that the affidavits are not truthful and false. Unfortunately, the High
Court has gone to the extent of saying that the appellant-Zahira has been used
by some persons with oblique motives. The witnesses who filed affidavits have
been termed to be of unsound mind, untruthful and capable of being manipulated,
without any material or reasonable and concrete basis to support such
conclusions. In any event, the logic applied by the High Court to discard the
affidavits of Zahira and others that they have fallen subsequently into the
hands of some who remained behind the curtain, can be equally applied to accept
the plea that accused or persons acting at their behest only had created fear
on the earlier occasion before deposing in Court by threats, in the minds of Zahira
and others. After having clearly concluded that the investigation was faulty
and there were serious doubts about the genuineness of the investigation, it
would have been proper for the High Court to accept the prayer made for
additional evidence and/or re-trial. Abrupt conclusions drawn about false
implication not only cannot stand the test of scrutiny but also lack judicious
approach and objective consideration, as is expected of a Court.
Section
391 of the Code is intended to sub-serve the ends of justice by arriving at the
truth and there is no question of filling of any lacuna in the case on hand.
The provision though a discretionary one is hedged with the condition about the
requirement to record reasons. All these aspects have been lost sight of and
the judgment, therefore, is indefensible. It was submitted that this is a fit
case where the prayer for retrial as a sequel to acceptance of additional
evidence should be directed. Though, the re-trial is not the only result
flowing from acceptance of additional evidence, in view of the peculiar
circumstances of the case, the proper course would be to direct acceptance of
additional evidence and in the fitness of things also order for a re-trial on
the basis of the additional evidence.
It was
submitted by the appellants that in view of the atmosphere in which the case
was tried originally there should be a direction for a trial outside the State
in case this Court thinks it so appropriate to direct, and evidence could be
recorded by video conferencing so that a hostile atmosphere can be avoided. It
is further submitted that the fresh investigation should be directed as
investigation already conducted was not done in a fair manner and the
prosecutor did not act fairly. If the State's machinery fails to protect
citizen's life, liberties and property and the investigation is conducted in a
manner to help the accused persons, it is but appropriate that this Court
should step in to prevent undue miscarriage of justice that is perpetrated upon
the victims and their family members.
Mr. Rohtagi,
learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the State of Gujarat in the
appeal filed by it submitted that the application under consideration of the
High Court was in terms of Section 311 and Section 391 of the Code. Though the
nomenclature is really not material, the prayer was to permit the affidavits to
be brought on record, admit and take additional evidence of the persons filing
the affidavits by calling/re-calling them in addition to certain directions for
re-trial if the High Court felt it to be so necessary after considering the additional
evidence. Though there was no challenge to Zahira's locus standi to file an
appeal, it is submitted that prayer for re-hearing by another High Court and/or
for trial outside the State cannot be countenanced and it is nobody's case that
the Courts in Gujarat cannot do complete justice and such moves do not serve
anybody's purpose.
There
is no proper reason indicated by the High Court to refuse to take on record the
affidavits and the only inferable reason as it appears i.e. that the affidavits
were also filed in this Court in another proceeding is no reason in the eye of
law. Admissibility of material is one thing and what is its worth is another
thing and relates to acceptability of the evidence. Since they were relevant,
being filed by alleged eye-witnesses, there was no basis for the High Court to
discard them. Even if the appellant-Zahira has taken different stands as
concluded by the High Court, it was obligatory for the Court to find out as to
what is the correct stand and real truth which could have been decided and
examined by accepting the prayer for additional evidence. The High Court has,
without any material or sufficient basis, come to hold that the FIR was
manipulated, and the fax message referred to by the State could also have been manipulated.
There is no basis for coming to such a conclusion. There was no material before
the trial Court to conclude that the FIR was lodged by one Rahish Khan, though
the statement of appellant-Zahira was anterior in point of time. The stand of
the State was that it was relying on Zahira's version to be the FIR. The State
had filed the application for acceptance of additional evidence as it was of
the view that the FIR registered on the basis of Zahira's statement was an
authentic one and no evidence aliunde was necessary. In the absence of even any
material the abrupt conclusion about manipulation and the other conclusions of
the High Court are perverse and also contradictory in the sense that after
having said that affidavits were not to be brought on record it went on to
label it as not truthful.
The
High Court should not have thrown out the application as well as the materials
sought to be brought on record even at the threshold and yet gone on to surmise
on reasons, at the same time, professing to decide on its correctness.
The
stands taken before the High Court to justify acceptance of additional evidence
and directions for retrial were re-iterated.
Mr. Sushil
Kumar, learned senior counsel for the accused submitted that it is not correct
to say that application under Section 391 of the Code was not admitted.
It was
in fact admitted and rejected on merits. It is also not correct to say that the
investigation was perfunctory.
The
affidavits sought to be brought on record were considered on their own merits.
While Zahira's prayer was for fresh investigation, the State's appeal in
essence was for fresh trial. The four persons whose affidavits were pressed
into service were PWs 1, 6, 47 and 48. They were examined as PWs and there was
no new evidence. There can be no re-examination on the pretext used by the
State for re- trial. The original appeal filed by the State was Appeal no. 956
of 2003. There was first an amendment in September 2003, and finally in
December 2003. The stand got changed from time to time. What essentially was
urged or sought for, related to fresh trial on the ground that investigation
was not fair. The stand taken by the State in its appeal is also contrary to
evidence on record. Though one of the grounds seeking fresh trial was the alleged
deficiencies of the public prosecutor in conducting the trial and for not
bringing on record the contradictions with reference to the statements recorded
during investigation, in fact it has been done. There was nothing wrong in
treating statement of Rahish Khan as the FIR. The High Court has rightly
concluded that Zahira's statement was manipulated as if she had given
information at the first point of time which is belied by the fact that it
reached the concerned Court after three days. The High Court after analysing
the evidence has correctly come to the conclusion that the police manipulated
in getting false witnesses to rope in wrong people as the accused. Irrelevant
and out of context submissions are said to have been made, and grounds taken
and reliefs sought for by Zahira in her appeal.
Mr.
KTS Tulsi, learned senior counsel also appearing for the accused persons in the
appeal filed by the State submitted that in Section 311 the key words are
"if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the
case". Therefore, the Court must be satisfied that the additional evidence
is necessary and it is not possible to arrive at a just conclusion on the basis
of the records.
For
that purpose it has to apply its mind to the evidence already on record and
thereafter decide whether it feels any additional evidence to be necessary. For
that purpose, the Court has to come to a prima facie conclusion that an appeal
cannot be decided on the basis of materials existing on record. Therefore, before
dealing with an application under Section 391 the Court has to analyse the
evidence already existing. Since the High Court in the instant case has analysed
the evidence threadbare and come to the conclusion that the trial was fair and
satisfactory and a positive conclusion has been arrived at after analysing the
evidence, the question of pressing into service Section 391 of the Code does
not arise.
In
essence three points were urged by Mr. Tulsi. They are as follows:
For
the purpose of exercise of power under Section 391 of the Code, the Court has
to come to a conclusion about the necessity for additional evidence which only
could be done after examining evidence on record. In other words the Court must
arrive at a conclusion that the existing material is insufficient for the
purpose of arriving at a just decision.
The
High Court has undertaken an elaborate exercise for the purpose of arriving at
the conclusion as to whether additional evidence was necessary after examining
every relevant aspect. It has come to a definite conclusion that the trial of
the case was fair, satisfactory and neither any illegalities were committed nor
any evidence was wrongly accepted or rejected. The extraneous factors have been
kept out of consideration as these may have influenced the witnesses in
changing their evidence and giving a go by to substantive evidence tendered in
Court. A need for giving finality to trial in criminal proceedings is paramount
as otherwise prejudice is caused to the accused persons and in fact it would be
a negation of the fundamental rule of law to make the accused to undergo trial
once over which has the effect of derailing system of justice. Elaborating the
points it is submitted that if the Court feels that additional evidence is not
necessary after analysing the existing evidence and the nature of materials
sought to be brought in, it cannot be said that the Court has acted in a manner
contrary to law. In fact, the High Court has felt that extraneous materials are
now sought to be introduced and it is not known as to whether the present
statement of the witnesses is correct or what was stated before the trial Court
originally was the truth. The Court analysed the evidence of the material
witnesses and noticed several relevant factors to arrive at this conclusion.
The necessity and need for additional evidence has to be determined in the
context of the need for a just decision and it cannot be used for filling up a
lacuna. Reference is made to the decisions of this Court in Jamatraj Kewalji Govani
v. The State of Maharashtra (1967 (3) SCR 415) and Mohanlal Shamji
Soni v. Union of India and Another (1991 Supp (1) SCC 271).
The
High Court has also come to definite conclusion that the submissions of the
State and the Sahera cannot be accepted because non-examination of certain
persons was on account of the circumstances indicated by the trial Court and
that conclusion has been arrived at after analysing the factual background.
There is no guarantee, as rightly observed by the High Court, that the subsequent
affidavits are true. On the contrary, in the absence of any contemporary
grievance having been made before the Court about any pressure or threat, the
affidavits and the claims now sought to be made have been rightly discarded.
Right
from the inception of the judicial system it has been accepted that discovery,
vindication and establishment of truth are the main purposes underlying
existence of Courts of justice. The operating principles for a fair trial
permeate the common law in both civil and criminal contexts.
Application
of these principles involve a delicate judicial balancing of competing
interests in a criminal trial, the interests of the accused and the public and
to a great extent that of the victim have to be weighed not losing sight of the
public interest involved in the prosecution of persons who commit offences.
In
1846, in a judgment which Lord Chancellor Selborne would later describe as
"one of the ablest judgments of one of the ablest judges who ever sat in
this court". Vice- Chancellor Knight Bruce said:
"The
discovery and vindication and establishment of truth are main purposes
certainly of the existence of Courts of Justice; still, for the obtaining of
these objects, which, however valuable and important, cannot be usefully pursued
without moderation, cannot be either usefully or creditably pursued unfairly or
gained by unfair means, not every channel is or ought to be open to them. The
practical inefficacy of torture is not, I suppose, the most weighty objection
to that mode of examination.. Truth, like all other good things, may be loved
unwisely - may be pursued too keenly - may cost too much." The
Vice-Chancellor went on to refer to paying "too great a price... for
truth". This is a formulation which has subsequently been frequently
invoked, including by Sir Gerard Brennan. On another occasion, in a joint
judgment of the High Court, a more expansive formulation of the proposition was
advanced in the following terms: "The evidence has been obtained at a
price which is unacceptable having regard to prevailing community
standards." Restraints on the processes for determining the truth are
multi-faceted. They have emerged in numerous different ways, at different times
and affect different areas of the conduct of legal proceedings. By the
traditional common law method of induction there has emerged in our
jurisprudence the principle of a fair trial. Oliver Wendell Holmes described
the process:
"It
is the merit of the common law that it decides the case first and determines
the principle afterwards ... It is only after a series of determination on the
same subject-matter, that it becomes necessary to "reconcile the
cases", as it s called, that is, by a true induction to state the
principle which has until then been obscurely felt. And this statement is often
modified more than once by new decisions before the abstracted general rule
takes its final shape. A well settled legal doctrine embodies the work of many
minds, and has been tested in form as well as substance by trained critics whose
practical interest is to resist it at every step." The principle of fair
trial now informs and energises many areas of the law. It is reflected in
numerous rules and practices. It is a constant, ongoing development process
continually adapted to new and changing circumstances, and exigencies of the
situation - peculiar at times and related to the nature of crime, persons
involved - directly or operating behind, social impact and societal needs and
even so many powerful balancing factors which may come in the way of
administration of criminal justice system.
As
will presently appear, the principle of a fair trial manifests itself in
virtually every aspect of our practice and procedure, including the laws of
evidence. There is, however, an overriding and, perhaps, unifying principle. As
Deane J put it:
"It
is desirable that the requirement of fairness be separately identified since it
transcends the content of more particularized legal rules and principles and
provides the ultimate rationale and touchstone of the rules and practices which
the common law requires to be observed in the administration of the substantive
criminal law".
This
Court has often emphasised that in a criminal case the fate of the proceedings
cannot always be left entirely in the hands of the parties, crimes being public
wrongs in breach and violation of public rights and duties, which affect the
whole community as a community and harmful to the society in general. The
concept of fair trial entails familiar triangulation of interests of the
accused, the victim and the society and it is the community that acts through
the State and prosecuting agencies. Interests of society is not to be treated
completely with disdain and as persona non grata. Courts have always been
considered to have an over-riding duty to maintain public confidence in the
administration of justice - often referred to as the duty to vindicate and
uphold the 'majesty of the law'. Due administration of justice has always been
viewed as a continuous process, not confined to determination of the particular
case, protecting its ability to function as a Court of law in the future as in
the case before it. If a criminal Court is to be an effective instrument in
dispensing justice, the Presiding Judge must cease to be a spectator and a mere
recording machine by becoming a participant in the trial evincing intelligence,
active interest and elicit all relevant materials necessary for reaching the
correct conclusion, to find out the truth, and administer justice with fairness
and impartiality both to the parties and to the community it serves. Courts
administering criminal justice cannot turn a blind eye to vexatious or
oppressive conduct that has occurred in relation to proceedings, even if a fair
trial is still possible, except at the risk of undermining the fair name and
standing of the judges as impartial and independent adjudicators.
The
principles of rule of law and due process are closely linked with human rights
protection. Such rights can be protected effectively when a citizen has
recourse to the Courts of law. It has to be unmistakably understood that a
trial which is primarily aimed at ascertaining truth has to be fair to all
concerned. There can be no analytical, all comprehensive or exhaustive
definition of the concept of a fair trial, and it may have to be determined in
seemingly infinite variety of actual situations with the ultimate object in
mind viz. whether something that was done or said either before or at the trial
deprived the quality of fairness to a degree where a miscarriage of justice has
resulted. It will not be correct to say that it is only the accused who must be
fairly dealt with. That would be turning Nelson's eyes to the needs of the
society at large and the victims or their family members and relatives. Each
one has an inbuilt right to be dealt with fairly in a criminal trial. Denial of
a fair trial is as much injustice to the accused as is to the victim and the
society. Fair trial obviously would mean a trial before an impartial Judge, a
fair prosecutor and atmosphere of judicial calm. Fair trial means a trial in
which bias or prejudice for or against the accused, the witnesses, or the cause
which is being tried is eliminated. If the witnesses get threatened or are
forced to give false evidence that also would not result in a fair trial. The
failure to hear material witnesses is certainly denial of fair trial.
While
dealing with the claims for the transfer of a case under Section 406 of the
Code from one State to another this Court in Mrs. Maneka Sanjay Gandhi and Anr.
v. Ms. Rani Jethmalani (1979 (4) SCC 167), emphasised the necessity to ensure
fair trial, observing as hereunder:
"Assurance
of a fair trial is the first imperative of the dispensation of justice and the
central criterion for the court to consider when a motion for transfer is made
is not the hypersensitivity or relative convenience of a party or easy
availability of legal services or like mini-grievances.
Something
more substantial, more compelling, more imperilling, from the point of view of
public justice and its attendant environment, is necessitous if the Court is to
exercise its power of transfer. This is the cardinal principle although the
circumstances may be myriad and vary from case to case. We have to test the
petitioner's grounds on this touchstone bearing in mind the rule that normally
the complainant has the right to choose any court having jurisdiction and the
accused cannot dictate where the case against him should be tried. Even so, the
process of justice should not harass the parties and from that angle the court
may weigh the circumstances.
A more
serious ground which disturbs us in more ways than one is the alleged absence
of congenial atmosphere for a fair and impartial trial. It is becoming a
frequent phenomenon in our country that court proceedings are being disturbed
by rude hoodlums and unruly crowds, jostling, jeering or cheering and
disrupting the judicial hearing with menaces, noises and worse. This tendency
of toughs and street roughs to violate the serenity of court is obstructive of
the course of justice and must surely be stamped out. Likewise, the safety of
the person of an accused or complainant is an essential condition for
participation in a trial and where that is put in peril by commotion, tumult or
threat on account of pathological conditions prevalent in a particular venue,
the request for a transfer may not be dismissed summarily. It causes disquiet
and concern to a court of justice if a person seeking justice is unable to appear,
present one's case, bring one's witnesses or adduce evidence. Indeed, it is the
duty of the court to assure propitious conditions which conduce to comparative
tranquility at the trial. Turbulent conditions putting the accused's life in
danger or creating chaos inside the court hall may jettison public justice. If
this vice is peculiar to a particular place and is persistent the transfer of
the case from that place may become necessary. Likewise, if there is general
consternation or atmosphere of tension or raging masses of people in the entire
region taking sides and polluting the climate, vitiating the necessary
neutrality to hold detached judicial trial, the situation may be said to have
deteriorated to such an extent as to warrant transfer. In a decision cited by
the counsel for the petitioner, Bose, J., observed :
....
But we do feel that good grounds for transfer from Jashpurnagar are made out
because of the bitterness of local communal feeling and the tenseness of the
atmosphere there. Public confidence in the fairness of a trial held in such an
atmosphere would be seriously undermined, particularly among reasonable
Christians all over India not because the Judge was unfair or biased but
because the machinery of justice is not geared to work in the midst of such
conditions. The calm detached atmosphere of a fair and impartial judicial trial
would be wanting, and even if justice were done it would not be "seen to
be done". (G. X. Francis v. Banke Behari Singh, AIR 1958 SC 309) Accepting
this perspective we must approach the facts of the present case without
excitement, exaggeration or eclipse of a sense of proportion. It may be true
that the petitioner attracts a crowd in Bombay.
Indeed,
it is true of many controversial figures in public life that their presence in
a public place gathers partisans for and against, leading to cries and catcalls
or 'jais' or 'zindabads'. Nor is it unnatural that some persons may have
acquired, for a time a certain quality of reputation, sometimes notoriety,
sometimes glory, which may make them the cynosure of popular attention when
they appear in cities even in a court. And when unkempt crowds press into a
court hall it is possible that some pushing, some nudging, some brash ogling or
angry staring may occur in the rough and tumble resulting in ruffled feelings
for the victim.
This
is a far cry from saying that the peace inside the court has broken down, that
calm inside the court is beyond restoration, that a tranquil atmosphere for
holding the trial is beyond accomplishment or that operational freedom for
judge, parties, advocates and witnesses has creased to exist. None of the
allegations made by the petitioner, read in the pragmatic light of the
counter-averments of the respondent and understood realistically, makes the
contention of the counsel credible that a fair trial is impossible. Perhaps,
there was some rough weather but it subsided, and it was a storm in the tea cup
or transient tension to exaggerate which is unwarranted. The petitioner's case
of great insecurity or molestation to the point of threat to life is, so far as
the record bears out, difficult to accept. The mere word of an interested party
is insufficient to convince us that she is in jeopardy or the court may not be
able to conduct the case under conditions of detachment, neutrality or
uninterrupted progress. We are disinclined to stampede ourselves into conceding
a transfer of the case on this score, as things stand now.
Nevertheless,
we cannot view with unconcern the potentiality of a flare up and the challenge
to a fair trial, in the sense of a satisfactory participation by the accused in
the proceedings against her. Mob action may throw out of gear the wheels of the
judicial process. Engineered fury may paralyse a party's ability to present his
case or participate in the trial. If the justice system grinds to a halt
through physical manoeuvres or sound and fury of the senseless populace the
rule of law runs aground. Even the most hated human anathema has a right to be
heard without the rage of ruffians or huff of toughs being turned against him
to unnerve him as party or witness or advocate. Physical violence to a party,
actual or imminent, is reprehensible when he seeks justice before a tribunal.
Manageable
solutions must not sweep this Court off its feet into granting an easy transfer
but uncontrollable or perilous deterioration will surely persuade us to shift
the venue. It depends. The frequency of mobbing manoeuvres in court precincts
is a bad omen for social justice in its wider connotation. We, therefore, think
it necessary to make a few cautionary observations which will be sufficient, as
we see at present, to protect the petitioner and ensure for her a fair trial.
A
criminal trial is a judicial examination of the issues in the case and its
purpose is to arrive at a judgment on an issue as a fact or relevant facts
which may lead to the discovery of the fact issue and obtain proof of such
facts at which the prosecution and the accused have arrived by their pleadings;
the controlling question being the guilt or innocence of the accused. Since the
object is to mete out justice and to convict the guilty and protect the
innocent, the trial should be a search for the truth and not a bout over
technicalities, and must be conducted under such rules as will protect the
innocent, and punish the guilty. The proof of charge which has to be beyond
reasonable doubt must depend upon judicial evaluation of the totality of the
evidence, oral and circumstantial and not by an isolated scrutiny.
Failure
to accord fair hearing either to the accused or the prosecution violates even
minimum standards of due process of law. It is inherent in the concept of due
process of law, that condemnation should be rendered only after the trial in
which the hearing is a real one, not sham or a mere farce and pretence. Since
the fair hearing requires an opportunity to preserve the process, it may be
vitiated and violated by an overhasty stage-managed, tailored and partisan
trial.
The
fair trial for a criminal offence consists not only in technical observance of
the frame and forms of law, but also in recognition and just application of its
principles in substance, to find out the truth and prevent miscarriage of
justice.
"Witnesses"
as Benthem said: are the eyes and ears of justice. Hence, the importance and
primacy of the quality of trial process. If the witness himself is
incapacitated from acting as eyes and ears of justice, the trial gets putrefied
and paralysed, and it no longer can constitute a fair trial.
The
incapacitation may be due to several factors like the witness being not in a
position for reasons beyond control to speak the truth in the Court or due to
negligence or ignorance or some corrupt collusion. Time has become ripe to act
on account of numerous experiences faced by Courts on account of frequent
turning of witnesses as hostile, either due to threats, coercion, lures and
monetary considerations at the instance of those in power, their henchmen and
hirelings, political clouts and patronage and innumerable other corrupt
practices ingenuously adopted to smoother and stifle truth and realities coming
out to surface rendering truth and justice, to become ultimate casualties.
Broader public and societal interests require that the victims of the crime who
are not ordinarily parties to prosecution and the interests of State
represented by their prosecuting agencies do not suffer even in slow process
but irreversibly and irretrievably, which if allowed would undermine and
destroy public confidence in the administration of justice, which may ultimately
pave way for anarchy, oppression and injustice resulting in complete breakdown
and collapse of the edifice of rule of law, enshrined and jealously guarded and
protected by the Constitution. There comes the need for protecting the witness.
Time has come when serious and undiluted thoughts are to be bestowed for
protecting witnesses so that ultimate truth is presented before the Court and
justice triumphs and that the trial is not reduced to mockery. The State has a
definite role to play in protecting the witnesses, to start with at least in
sensitive cases involving those in power, who has political patronage and could
wield muscle and money power, to avert trial getting tainted and derailed and
truth becoming a casualty. As a protector of its citizens it has to ensure that
during a trial in Court the witness could safely depose truth without any fear
of being haunted by those against whom he has deposed. Some legislative
enactments like the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987
(in short the 'TADA Act') have taken note of the reluctance shown by witnesses
to depose against dangerous criminals- terrorists. In a milder form also the
reluctance and the hesitation of witnesses to depose against people with muscle
power, money power or political power has become the order of the day. If
ultimately truth is to be arrived at, the eyes and ears of justice have to be
protected so that the interests of justice do not get incapacitated in the
sense of making the proceedings before Courts mere mock trials as are usually
seen in movies.
Legislative
measures to emphasise prohibition against tampering with witness, victim or
informant have become the imminent and inevitable need of the day. Conducts
which illegitimately affect the presentation of evidence in proceedings before
the Courts have to be seriously and sternly dealt with. There should not be any
undue anxiety to only protect the interest of the accused. That would be unfair
as noted above to the needs of the society. On the contrary, the efforts should
be to ensure fair trial where the accused and the prosecution both get a fair
deal. Public interest in the proper administration of justice must be given as
much importance if not more, as the interests of the individual accused. In
this courts have a vital role to play.
The
Courts have to take a participatory role in a trial. They are not expected to
be tape recorders to record whatever is being stated by the witnesses. Section
311 of the Code and Section 165 of the Evidence Act confer vast and wide powers
on Presiding Officers of Court to elicit all necessary materials by playing an
active role in the evidence collecting process. They have to monitor the
proceedings in aid of justice in a manner that something, which is not
relevant, is not unnecessarily brought into record. Even if the prosecutor is
remiss in some ways, it can control the proceedings effectively so that
ultimate objective i.e. truth is arrived at. This becomes more necessary where
the Court has reasons to believe that the prosecuting agency or the prosecutor
is not acting in the requisite manner. The Court cannot afford to be wishfully
or pretend to be blissfully ignorant or oblivious to such serious pitfalls or
dereliction of duty on the part of the prosecuting agency. The prosecutor who
does not act fairly and acts more like a counsel for the defence is a liability
to the fair judicial system, and Courts could not also play into the hands of
such prosecuting agency showing indifference or adopting an attitude of total
aloofness.
The
power of the Court under Section 165 of the Evidence Act is in a way
complementary to its power under Section 311 of the Code. The section consists
of two parts i.e
(i) giving
a discretion to the Court to examine the witness at any stage and
(ii) the
mandatory portion which compels the Court to examine a witness if his evidence
appears to be essential to the just decision of the Court.
Though
the discretion given to the Court is very wide, the very width requires a
corresponding caution. In Mohan Lal v. Union of India (1991 Supp (1) SCC 271)
this Court has observed, while considering the scope and ambit of Section 311,
that the very usage of the word such as, 'any Court' 'at any stage', or 'any
enquiry or trial or other proceedings' 'any person' and 'any such person'
clearly spells out that the Section has expressed in the widest possible terms
and do not limit the discretion of the Court in any way. However, as noted
above, the very width requires a corresponding caution that the discretionary powers
should be invoked as the exigencies of justice require and exercised judicially
with circumspection and consistently with the provisions of the Code. The
second part of the section does not allow any discretion but obligates and
binds the Court to take necessary steps if the fresh evidence to be obtained is
essential to the just decision of the case - 'essential', to an active and
alert mind and not to one which is bent to abandon or abdicate. Object of the
Section is to enable the Court to arrive at the truth irrespective of the fact
that the prosecution or the defence has failed to produce some evidence which
is necessary for a just and proper disposal of the case. The power is exercised
and the evidence is examined neither to help the prosecution nor the defence,
if the Court feels that there is necessity to act in terms of Section 311 but
only to subserve the cause of justice and public interest. It is done with an
object of getting the evidence in aid of a just decision and to uphold the
truth.
It is
not that in every case where the witness who had given evidence before Court
wants to change his mind and is prepared to speak differently, that the Court
concerned should readily accede to such request by lending its assistance. If
the witness who deposed one way earlier comes before the appellate Court with a
prayer that he is prepared to give evidence which is materially different from
what he has given earlier at the trial with the reasons for the earlier lapse,
the Court can consider the genuineness of the prayer in the context as to
whether the party concerned had a fair opportunity to speak the truth earlier
and in an appropriate case accept it. It is not that the power is to be
exercised in a routine manner, but being an exception to the ordinary rule of
disposal of appeal on the basis of records received in exceptional cases or
extraordinary situation the Court can neither feel powerless nor abdicate its
duty to arrive at the truth and satisfy the ends of justice. The Court can
certainly be guided by the metaphor, separate the grain from the chaff, and in
a case which has telltale imprint of reasonableness and genuineness in the
prayer, the same has to be accepted, at least to consider the worth,
credibility and the acceptability of the same on merits of the material sought
to be brought in.
Ultimately,
as noted above, ad nauseam the duty of the Court is to arrive at the truth and subserve
the ends of justice. Section 311 of the Code does not confer any party any
right to examine, cross-examine and re-examine any witness. This is a power
given to the Court not to be merely exercised at the bidding of any one
party/person but the powers conferred and discretion vested are to prevent any
irretrievable or immeasurable damage to the cause of society, public interest
and miscarriage of justice.
Recourse
may be had by Courts to power under this section only for the purpose of
discovering relevant facts or obtaining proper proof of such facts as are
necessary to arrive at a just decision in the case.
Section
391 of the Code is another salutary provision which clothes the Courts with the
power to effectively decide an appeal. Though Section 386 envisages the normal
and ordinary manner and method of disposal of an appeal, yet it does not and
cannot be said to exhaustively enumerate the modes by which alone the Court can
deal with an appeal.
Section
391 is one such exception to the ordinary rule and if the appellate Court
considers additional evidence to be necessary, the provisions in Section 386
and Section 391 have to be harmoniously considered to enable the appeal to be
considered and disposed of also in the light of the additional evidence as
well. For this purpose it is open to the appellate Court to call for further
evidence before the appeal is disposed of. The appellate Court can direct the
taking up of further evidence in support of the prosecution;
a
fortiori it is open to the Court to direct that the accused persons may also be
given a chance of adducing further evidence. Section 391 is in the nature of an
exception to the general rule and the powers under it must also be exercised
with great care, specially on behalf of the prosecution lest the admission of
additional evidence for the prosecution operates in a manner prejudicial to the
defence of the accused. The primary object of Section 391 is the prevention of
guilty man's escape through some careless or ignorant proceedings before a
Court or vindication of an innocent person wrongfully accused. Where the Court
through some carelessness or ignorance has omitted to record the circumstances
essential to elucidation of truth, the exercise of powers under Section 391 is
desirable.
The
legislative intent in enacting Section 391 appears to be the empowerment of the
appellate court to see that justice is done between the prosecutor and the
persons prosecuted and if the appellate Court finds that certain evidence is
necessary in order to enable it to give a correct and proper findings, it would
be justified in taking action under Section 391.
There
is no restriction in the wording of Section 391 either as to the nature of the
evidence or that it is to be taken for the prosecution only or that the
provisions of the Section are only to be invoked when formal proof for the
prosecution is necessary. If the appellate Court thinks that it is necessary in
the interest of justice to take additional evidence it shall do so. There is
nothing in the provision limiting it to cases where there has been merely some
formal defect. The matter is one of the discretion of the appellate Court. As
re-iterated supra the ends of justice are not satisfied only when the accused
in a criminal case is acquitted. The community acting through the State and the
public prosecutor is also entitled to justice.
The
cause of the community deserves equal treatment at the hands of the Court in
the discharge of its judicial functions.
In Rambhau
and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (2001 (4) SCC 759) it was held that the object
of Section 391 is not to fill in lacuna, but to subserve the ends of justice.
The Court has to keep these salutary principle in view. Though wide discretion
is conferred on the Court, the same has to be exercised judicially and the
Legislature had put the safety valve by requiring recording of reasons.
Need
for circumspection was dealt with by this Court in Mohanlal Shamji Soni's case
(supra) and Ram Chander v. State of Haryana (1981 (3) SCC 191) which dealt with
the corresponding Section 540 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (in short the
'Old Code') and also in Jamatraj's case (supra). While dealing with Section 311
this Court in Rajendra Prasad v. Narcotic Cell thr. Its officer in Charge,
Delhi (1999 (6) SCC 110) held as follows:
"It
is a common experience in criminal courts that defence counsel would raise
objections whenever courts exercise powers under Section 311 of the Code or
under Section 165 of the Evidence Act, 1872 by saying that the court could not
"fill the lacuna in the prosecution case". A lacuna in the
prosecution is not to be equated with the fallout of an oversight committed by
a Public Prosecutor during trial, either in producing relevant materials or in
eliciting relevant answers from witnesses. The adage "to err is
human" is the recognition of the possibility of making mistakes to which
humans are prone. A corollary of any such laches or mistakes during the
conducting of a case cannot be understood as a lacuna which a court cannot fill
up.
Lacuna
in the prosecution must be understood as the inherent weakness or a latent
wedge in the matrix of the prosecution case. The advantage of it should
normally go to the accused in the trial of the case, but an oversight in the
management of the prosecution cannot be treated as irreparable lacuna. No party
in a trial can be foreclosed from correcting errors. If proper evidence was not
adduced or a relevant material was not brought on record due to any
inadvertence, the court should be magnanimous in permitting such mistakes to be
rectified. After all, function of the criminal court is administration of
criminal justice and not to count errors committed by the parties or to find
out and declare who among the parties performed better".
Whether
a retrial under Section 386 or taking up of additional evidence under Section
391 is the proper procedure will depend on the facts and circumstances of each
case for which no straight-jacket formula of universal and invariable
application can be formulated.
In the
ultimate analysis whether it is a case covered by Section 386 or Section 391 of
the Code the underlying object which the Court must keep in view is the very
reasons for which the Courts exist i.e. to find out the truth and dispense
justice impartially and ensure also that the very process of Courts are not
employed or utilized in a manner which give room to unfairness or lend
themselves to be used as instruments of oppression and injustice.
Though
justice is depicted to be blind-folded, as popularly said, it is only a veil
not to see who the party before it is while pronouncing judgment on the cause
brought before it by enforcing law and administer justice and not to ignore or
turn the mind/attention of the Court away from the truth of the cause or lis
before it, in disregard of its duty to prevent miscarriage of justice. When an
ordinary citizen makes a grievance against the mighty administration, any
indifference, inaction or lethargy shown in protecting his right guaranteed in
law will tend to paralyse by such inaction or lethargic action of Courts and
erode in stages faith inbuilt in judicial system ultimately destroying the very
justice delivery system of the country itself. Doing justice is the paramount
consideration and that duty cannot be abdicated or diluted and diverted by
manipulative red herrings.
The
Courts at the expense of repetition we may state, exist for doing justice to
the persons who are affected. The Trial/First Appellate Courts cannot get
swayed by abstract technicalities and close their eyes to factors which need to
be positively probed and noticed. The Court is not merely to act as a tape
recorder recording evidence, overlooking the object of trial i.e. to get at the
truth. It cannot be oblivious to the active role to be played for which there
is not only ample scope, but sufficient powers conferred under the Code. It has
a greater duty and responsibility i.e. to render justice, in a case where the
role of the prosecuting agency itself is put in issue and is said to be hand in
glove with the accused, parading a mock fight and making a mockery of the
criminal justice administration itself.
As
pithily stated in Jennison v. Backer (1972 (1) All E.R. 1006), "The law
should not be seen to sit limply, while those who defy it go free and, those
who seek its protection lose hope". Courts have to ensure that accused
persons are punished and that the might or authority of the State are not used
to shield themselves or their men. It should be ensured that they do not wield
such powers which under the Constitution has to be held only in trust for the
public and society at large. If deficiency in investigation or prosecution is
visible or can be perceived by lifting the veil trying to hide the realities or
covering the obvious deficiencies, Courts have to deal with the same with an
iron hand appropriately within the framework of law. It is as much the duty of
the prosecutor as of the Court to ensure that full and material facts are
brought on record so that there might not be miscarriage of justice. (See Shakila
Abdul Gafar Khan (Smt.) v. Vasant Raghunath Dhoble and Anr. (2003 (7) SCC 749).
This
Court in Vineet Narian v. Union of India (1998 (1) SCC 226) has directed that
steps should be taken immediately for the constitution of able and impartial
agency comprising persons of unimpeachable integrity to perform functions akin
to those of the Director of Prosecution in England. In the United Kingdom, the
Director of Prosecution was created in 1879. His appointment is by the Attorney
General from amongst the members of the Bar and he functions under the
supervision of Attorney General. The Director of Prosecution plays a vital role
in the prosecution system. He even administers "Witness Protection Programmes".
Several countries for example Australia, Canada and USA have even enacted
legislation in this regard.
The
Witness Protection Programmes are imperative as well as imminent in the context
of alarming rate of somersaults by witnesses with ulterior motives and purely
for personal gain or fear for security. It would be a welcome step if something
in those lines are done in our country. That would be a step in the right
direction for a fair trial.
Expression
of concern merely in words without really the mind to concretise it by positive
action would be not only useless but also amounts to betrayal of public
confidence and trust imposed.
Though
it was emphasised with great vehemence by Mr. Sushil Kumar and Mr. KTS Tulsi
that the High Court dealt with the application under Section 391 of the Code in
detail and not perfunctorily as contended by learned counsel for the
appellants; we find that nowhere the High Court has effectively dealt with the
application under Section 391 as a part of the exercise to deal with and
dispose of the appeal. In fact the High Court dealt with it practically in one
paragraph, i.e. Paragraph 36 of the judgment accepting the stand of learned counsel
for the accused that the consideration of the appeal has to be limited to the
records sent up under Section 385(2) of the Code for disposal of the appeal
under Section 386. This perception of the powers of the appellate Court and
misgivings as to the manner of disposal of an appeal per se vitiates the
decision rendered by the High Court. Section 386 of the Code deals with the
manner and disposal of the appeal in the normal or ordinary course. Section 391
is in the nature of exception to Section 386. As was observed in Rambhau's case
(supra) if the stand of learned counsel for the accused as was accepted by the
High Court is maintained, it would mean that Section 391 of the Code would be a
dead letter in the statute book. The necessity for additional evidence arises
when the Court feels that some evidence which ought to have been before it is
not there or that some evidence has been left out or erroneously brought in. In
all cases it cannot be laid down as a rule of universal application that the
Court has to first find out whether the evidence already on record is
sufficient. The nature and quality of the evidence on record is also relevant.
If the evidence already on record is shown or found to be tainted, tailored to
suit or help a particular party or side and the real truth has not and could
not have been spoken or brought forth during trial, it would constitute merely
an exercise in futility, if it considered first whether the evidence already on
record is sufficient to dispose of the appeals. Disposal of appeal does not
mean disposal for statistical purposes but effective and real disposal to
achieve the object of any trial. The exercise has to be taken up together. It
is not that the Court has to be satisfied that the additional evidence would be
necessary for rendering a verdict different from what was rendered by the trial
Court. In a given case even after assessing the additional evidence, the High
Court can maintain the verdict of the trial Court and similarly the High Court
on consideration of the additional evidence can upset the trial Court's
verdict. It all depends upon the relevance and acceptability of the additional
evidence and its qualitative worth in deciding the guilt or innocence of the
accused.
Merely
because the High Court permits additional evidence to be adduced, it does not
necessarily lead to the conclusion that the judgment of the trial Court was
wrong.
That
decision has to be arrived at after assessing the evidence that was before the
Trial Court and the additional evidence permitted to be adduced. The High Court
has observed that question of accepting application for additional evidence
will be dealt with separately, and in fact dealt with it in a cryptic manner
practically in one paragraph and did not think it necessary to accept the
additional evidence. But at the same time made threadbare analysis of the
affidavits as if it had accepted it as additional evidence and was testing its
acceptability. Even the conclusions arrived at with reference to those
affidavits do not appear to be correct and seem to suffer from apparent
judicial obstinacy and avowed determination to reject it. For example, to brand
a person as not truthful because a different statement was given before the
trial Court unmindful of the earliest statement given during investigation and
the reasons urged for turning hostile before Court negates the legislative
intent and purpose of incorporating Section 391 in the Code. The question of
admission of evidence initially or as additional evidence under Section 391 is distinct
from the efficacy, reliability and its acceptability for consideration of
claims in the appeal on merits. It is only after admission, the Court should
consider in each case whether on account of earlier contradiction before Court
and the testimony allowed to be given as additional evidence, which of them or
any one part or parts of the depositions are creditworthy and acceptable, after
a comparative analysis and consideration of the probabilities and probative
value of the materials for adjudging the truth. To reject it merely because of
contradiction and that too in a sensitised case like the one before Court with
a horror and terror oriented history of its own would amount to conspicuous
omission and deliberate dereliction of discharging functions judiciously and
with a justice-orientated mission. In a given case when the Court is satisfied
that for reasons on record the witness had not stated truthfully before the
trial Court and was willing to speak the truth before it, the power under
Section 391 of the Code is to be exercised. It is to be noted at this stage
that it is not the prosecution which alone can file an application under
Section 391 of the Code. It can also be done, in an appropriate case by the
accused to prove his innocence. Therefore, any approach without pragmatic
consideration defeats the very purpose for which Section 391 of the Code has
been enacted. Certain observations of the High Court like, that if the accused
persons were really guilty they would not have waited for long to commit
offences or that they would have killed the victims in the night taking
advantage of the darkness and/or that the accused persons had saved some
persons belonging to the other community were not only immaterial for the
purpose of adjudication of application for additional evidence but such
surmises could have been carefully avoided at least in order to observe and
maintain the judicial calm and detachment required of the learned Judges in the
High Court. The conclusions of the High Court that 65 to 70 persons belonging
to the attacked community were saved by the accused or others appears to be
based on the evidence of the relatives of the accused who were surprisingly
examined by prosecution. We shall deal with the propriety of examining such
persons, infra. These aspects could have been, if at all permissible to be
done, considered after accepting the prayer for additional evidence. It is not
known as to what extent these irrelevant materials have influenced the ultimate
judgment of the High Court, in coming with such a strong and special plea in favour
of a prosecuting agency which has miserably failed to demonstrate any
credibility by its course of action. The entire approach of the High Court
suffers from serious infirmities, its conclusions lopsided and lacks proper or
judicious application of mind.
Arbitrariness
is found writ large on the approach as well as the conclusions arrived at in
the judgment under challenge, in unreasonably keeping out relevant evidence
from being brought on record.
Right
from the beginning, the stand of the appellant- Zahira was that the
investigating agency was trying to help the accused persons and so was the
public prosecutor. If the investigation was faulty, it was not the fault of the
victims or the witnesses. If the same was done in a manner with the object of
helping the accused persons as it appears to be apparent from what has
transpired so far, it was an additional ground just and reasonable as well for
accepting the additional evidence.
In the
case of a defective investigation the Court has to be circumspect in evaluating
the evidence and may have to adopt an active and analytical role to ensure that
truth is found by having recourse to Section 311 or at a later stage also
resorting to Section 391 instead of throwing hands in the air in despair. It
would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the
defect; to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the
investigating officer if the investigation is designedly defective. (See Karnel
Singh v. State of M.P. (1995 (5) SCC 518).
In Paras
Yadav and Ors. v. State of Bihar (1999 (2) SCC 126) it was held that if the
lapse or omission is committed by the investigating agency or because of
negligence the prosecution evidence is required to be examined de hors such
omissions to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not. The
contaminated conduct of officials should not stand on the way of Courts getting
at the truth by having recourse to Sections 311, 391 of the Code and Section 165
of the Evidence Act at the appropriate and relevant stages and evaluating the
entire evidence; otherwise the designed mischief would be perpetuated with a
premium to the offenders and justice would not only be denied to the
complainant party but also made an ultimate casualty.
As was
observed in Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar and Ors. (1998 (4) SCC 517) if primacy is given to such designed or
negligent investigation, to the omission or lapses by perfunctory investigation
or omissions, the faith and confidence of the people would be shaken not only
in the Law enforcing agency but also in the administration of justice in the
hands of Courts. The view was again re- iterated in Amar Singh v. Balwinder
Singh and Ors. (2003 (2) SCC 518).
It is
no doubt true that the accused persons have been acquitted by the trial Court
and the acquittal has been upheld, but if the acquittal is unmerited and based
on tainted evidence, tailored investigation, unprincipled prosecutor and
perfunctory trial and evidence of threatened/terrorised witnesses, it is no
acquittal in the eye of law and no sanctity or credibility can be attached and
given to the so-called findings. It seems to be nothing but a travesty of
truth, fraud on legal process and the resultant decisions of Courts - coram non
judis and non est.
There
is, therefore, every justification to call for interference in these appeals.
In a
country like us with heterogeneous religions and multiracial and multilingual
society which necessitates protection against discrimination on the ground of
caste or religion taking lives of persons belonging to one or the other
religion is bound to have dangerous repercussions and reactive effect on the
society at large and may tend to encourage fissiparous elements to undermine the
unity and security of the nation on account of internal disturbances.
It
strikes at the very root of an orderly society, which the founding fathers of
our Constitution dreamt of.
When
the ghastly killings take place in the land
of Mahatama Gandhi it raises a very pertinent question
as to whether some people have become so bankrupt in their ideology that they
have deviated from everything which was so dear to him. When large number of
people including innocent and helpless children and women are killed in a
diabolic manner it brings disgrace to the entire society.
Criminals
have no religion. No religion teaches violence and cruelty-based religion is no
religion at all, but a mere cloak to usurp power by fanning ill feeling and
playing on feelings aroused thereby. The golden thread passing through every
religion is love and compassion. The fanatics who spread violence in the name
of religion are worse than terrorists and more dangerous than an alien enemy.
The
little drops of humanness which jointly make humanity a cherished desire of
mankind had seemingly dried up when the perpetrators of the crime had burnt alive
helpless women and innocent children. Was it their fault that were born in the
houses of persons belonging to a particular community? The still, said music of
humanity had become silent when it was forsaken by those who were responsible
for the killings.
"Little
drops of Water, little grains of sand Make the mighty ocean And the pleasant
land, Little deeds of kindness, Little words of love Help to make earth happy
Like the heaven above" Said Julia A.F. Cabney in "Little
Things".
If one
even cursorily glances through the records of the case, one gets a feeling that
the justice delivery system was being taken for a ride and literally allowed to
be abused, misused and mutilated by subterfuge. The investigation appears to be
perfunctory and anything but impartial without any definite object of finding
out the truth and bringing to book those who were responsible for the crime.
The public prosecutor appears to have acted more as a defence counsel than one
whose duty was to present the truth before the Court. The Court in turn
appeared to be a silent spectator, mute to the manipulations and preferred to
be indifferent to sacrilege being committed to justice. The role of the State
Government also leaves much to be desired.
One
gets a feeling that there was really no seriousness in the State's approach in
assailing the Trial Court's judgment. This is clearly indicated by the fact
that the first memorandum of appeal filed was an apology for the grounds. A
second amendment was done, that too after this Court expressed its unhappiness
over the perfunctory manner in which the appeal was presented and challenge
made. That also was not the end of the matter. There was a subsequent petition
for amendment. All this sadly reflects on the quality of determination
exhibited by the State and the nature of seriousness shown to pursue the
appeal. Criminal trials should not be reduced to be the mock trials or shadow
boxing or fixed trials. Judicial Criminal Administration System must be kept
clean and beyond the reach of whimsical political wills or agendas and properly
insulated from discriminatory standards or yardsticks of the type prohibited by
the mandate of the Constitution.
Those
who are responsible for protecting life and properties and ensuring that
investigation is fair and proper seem to have shown no real anxiety. Large
number of people had lost their lives. Whether the accused persons were really
assailants or not could have been established by a fair and impartial
investigation. The modern day 'Neros' were looking elsewhere when Best Bakery
and innocent children and helpless women were burning, and were probably
deliberating how the perpetrators of the crime can be saved or protected. Law
and justice become flies in the hands of these "wanton boys". When
fences start to swallow the crops, no scope will be left for survival of law
and order or truth and justice. Public order as well as public interest become
martyrs and monuments.
In the
background of principles underlying Section 311 and Section 391 of the Code and
Section 165 of the Evidence Act it has to be seen as to whether the High
Court's approach is correct and whether it had acted justly, reasonably and fairly
in placing premiums on the serious lapses of grave magnitude by the prosecuting
agencies and the Trial Court, as well. There are several infirmities which are tell
tale even to the naked eye of even an ordinary common man. The High Court has
come to a definite conclusion that the investigation carried out by the police
was dishonest and faulty. That was and should have been per se sufficient
justification to direct a re-trial of the case. There was no reason for the
High Court to come to the further conclusion of its own about false implication
without concrete basis and that too merely on conjectures.
On the
other hand, the possibility of the investigating agency trying to shield the
accused persons keeping in view the methodology adopted and outturn of events
can equally be not ruled out. When the investigation is dishonest and faulty,
it cannot be only with the purpose of false implication. It may also be noted
at this stage that the High Court has even gone to the extent of holding that
the FIR was manipulated. There was no basis for such a presumptive remark or
arbitrary conclusion.
The
High Court has come to a conclusion that Zahira seems to have unfortunately for
some reasons after the pronouncement of the judgment fallen into the hands of
some who prefer to remain behind the curtain to come out with the affidavit
alleging threat during trial. It has rejected the application for adducing
additional evidence on the basis of the affidavit, but has found fault with the
affidavit and hastened to conclude unjustifiably that they are far from truth
by condemning those who were obviously victims. The question whether they were
worthy of credence, and whether the subsequent stand of the witnesses was
correct needed to be assessed, and adjudged judiciously on objective standards
which are the hallmark of a judicial pronouncement. Such observations if at all
could have been only made after accepting the prayer for additional evidence.
The disclosed purpose in the State Government's prayer with reference to the
affidavits was to bring to High Court's notice the situation which prevailed
during trial and the reasons as to why the witnesses gave the version as noted
by the Trial Court. Whether the witness had told the truth before the Trial
Court or as stated in the affidavit, were matters for assessment of evidence
when admitted and tendered and when the affidavit itself was not tendered as
evidence, the question of analysing it to find fault was not the proper course
to be adopted. The affidavits were filed to emphasise the need for permitting
additional evidence to be taken and for being considered as the evidence
itself. The High Court has also found that some persons were not present and,
therefore, question of their statement being recorded by the police did not
arise. For coming to this conclusion, the High Court noted that the statements
under Section 161 of the Code were recorded in Gujarati language though the
witnesses did not know Gujarati. The reasoning is erroneous for more reasons
than one. There was no material before the High Court for coming to a finding
that the persons did not know Gujarati since there may be a person who could
converse fluently in a language though not a literate to read and write.
Additionally, it is not a requirement in law that the statement under Section
161 of the Code has to be recorded in the language known to the person giving
the statement.
As a
matter of fact, the person giving the statement is not required to sign the
statement as is mandated in Section 162 of the Code. Sub-section (1) of Section
161 of the Code provides that the competent police officer may examine orally
any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the
case. Requirement is the examination by the concerned police officer. Sub-section
(3) is relevant, and it requires the police officer to reduce into writing any
statement made to him in the course of an examination under this Section; and
if he does so, he shall make a separate and true record of the statement of
each such person whose statement he records. Statement made by a witness to the
police officer during investigation may be reduced to writing. It is not
obligatory on the part of the police officer to record any statement made to
him. He may do so if he feels it necessary. What is enjoined by the Section is
a truthful disclosure by the person who is examined. In the above circumstance
the conclusion of the High Court holding that the persons were not present is
untenable. The reasons indicated by the High Court to justify non-examination
of the eye-witnesses is also not sustainable. In respect of one it has been
said that whereabouts of the witness may not be known. There is nothing on
record to show that the efforts were made by the prosecution to produce the
witness for tendering evidence and yet the net result was 'untraceable'. In
other words, the evidence which should have been brought before the Court was
not done with any meticulous care or seriousness. It is true that the
prosecution is not bound to examine each and every person who has been named as
witness. A person named as a witness may be given up when there is material to
show that he has been gained over or that there is no likelihood of the witness
speaking the truth in the Court. There was no such material brought to the
notice of the Courts below to justify non-examination. The materials on record
are totally silent on this aspect. Another aspect which has been lightly
brushed aside by the High Court is that one person who was to be examined on a
particular date was examined earlier than the date fixed. This unusual conduct
by the prosecutor should have been seriously taken note of by the Trial Court
and also by the High Court. It is to be noted that the High Court has found
fault with DCP Shri Piyush Patel and has gone to the extent of saying that he
has miserably failed to discharge his duties; while finding at the same time
that police inspector Baria had acted fairly.
The
criticism according to us is uncalled for. Role of Public Prosecutor was also
not in line with what is expected of him. Though a Public Prosecutor is not
supposed to be a persecutor, yet the minimum that was required to be done to
fairly present the case of the prosecution was not done.
Time
and again, this Court stressed upon the need of the investigating officer being
present during trial unless compelling reasons exist for a departure. In the
instant case, this does not appear to have been done, and there is no
explanation whatsoever why it was not done. Even Public Prosecutor does not
appear to have taken note of this desirability. In Shailendra Kumar v. State of
Bihar and Ors. (2001 (8) Supreme 13), it was observed as under:
"In
our view, in a murder trial it is sordid and repulsive matter that without
informing the police station officer-in-charge, the matters are proceeded by
the court and by the APP and tried to be disposed of as if the prosecution has
not led any evidence. From the facts stated above, it appears that accused
wants to frustrate the prosecution by unjustified means and it appears that by
one way or the other the Addl. Sessions Judge as well as the APP have not taken
any interest in discharge of their duties. It was the duty of the sessions
judge to issue summons to the investigating officer if he failed to remain
present at the time of trial of the case. The presence of investigating officer
at the time of trial is must. It is his duty to keep the witnesses present. If
there is failure on part of any witness to remain present, it is the duty of
the court to take appropriate action including issuance of bailable/non-bailable
warrants as the case may be. It should be well understood that prosecution can
not be frustrated by such methods and victims of the crime cannot be left in
lurch." A somewhat an unusual mode in contrast to the lapse committed by
non-examining victims and injured witnesses adopted by the investigating agency
and the prosecutor was examination of six relatives of accused persons. They
have expectedly given a clean chit to the accused and labeled them as saviors.
This unusual procedure was highlighted before the High Court. But the same was
not considered relevant as there is no legal bar. When we asked Mr. Rohtagi,
learned counsel for the State of Gujarat as to whether this does not reflect badly on the conduct of
investigating agency and the prosecutor, he submitted that this was done to
show the manner in which the incident had happened. This is a strange answer.
Witnesses are examined by prosecution to show primarily who is the accused. In
this case it was nobody's stand that the incident did not take place. That the
conduct of investigating agency and the prosecutor was not bona fide, is
apparent and patent.
So far
as non-examination of some injured relatives are concerned, the High Court has
held that in the absence of any medical report, it appears that they were not
present and, therefore, held that the prosecutor might have decided not to
examine Yasminbanu because there was no injury. This is nothing but a wishful
conclusion based on presumption.
It is
true that merely because the affidavit has been filed stating that the
witnesses were threatened, as a matter of routine, additional evidence should
not be permitted. But when the circumstances as in this case clearly indicate
that there is some truth or prima facie substance in the grievance made, having
regard to background of events as happened the appropriate course for the
Courts would be to admit additional evidence for final adjudication so that the
acceptability or otherwise of evidence tendered by way of additional evidence
can be tested properly and legally tested in the context of probative value of
the two versions. There cannot be straight-jacket formula or rule of universal
application when alone it can be done and when, not. As the provisions under
Section 391 of the Code are by way of an exception, the Court has to carefully
consider the need for and desirability to accept additional evidence. We do not
think it necessary to highlight all the infirmities in the judgment of the High
Court or the approach of the Trial Court lest nothing credible or worth
mentioning would remain in the process. This appears to be a case where the
truth has become a casualty in the trial. We are satisfied that it is fit and
proper case, in the background of the nature of additional evidence sought to
be adduced and the perfunctory manner of trial conducted on the basis of
tainted investigation a re-trial is a must and essentially called for in order
to save and preserve the justice delivery system unsullied and unscathed by
vested interests.
We
should not be understood to have held that whenever additional evidence is
accepted, re-trial is a necessary corollary. The case on hand is without
parallel and comparison to any of the cases where even such grievances were
sought to be made. It stands on its own as an exemplary one, special of its
kind, necessary to prevent its recurrence. It is normally for the Appellate
Court to decide whether the adjudication itself by taking into account the
additional evidence would be proper or it would be appropriate to direct a
fresh trial, though, on the facts of this case, the direction for re-trial
becomes inevitable.
Prayer
was made by learned counsel for the appellant that the trial should be
conducted outside the State so that the unhealthy atmosphere which led to
failure of miscarriage of justice is not repeated. This prayer has to be
considered in the background and keeping in view the spirit of Section 406 of
the Code. It is one of the salutory principles of the administration of justice
that justice should not only be done but it should be seen to be done.
However,
a mere allegation that there is apprehension that justice will not be done in a
given case or that general allegations of a surcharged atmosphere against a
particular community alone does not suffice. The Court has to see whether the
apprehension is reasonable or not. The state of mind of the person who
entertains apprehension, no doubt is a relevant factor but not the only
determinative or concluding factor. But the Court must be fully satisfied about
the existence of such conditions which would render inevitably impossible the
holding of a fair and impartial trial, uninfluenced by extraneous
considerations that may ultimately undermine the confidence of reasonable and
right thinking citizen, in the justice delivery system. The apprehension must
appear to the Court to be a reasonable one. This position has been highlighted
in Gurcharan Das Chadha v. State of Rajasthan (1966 (2) SCR 678), and K. Ambazhagan v. The Superintendent of Police
and others etc. (JT 2003 (9) SC 31).
Keeping
in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, and the ample evidence on
record, glaringly demonstrating subversion of justice delivery system with no
congeal and conducive atmosphere still prevailing, we direct that the re-trial
shall be done by a Court under the jurisdiction of Bombay High Court. The Chief
Justice of the said High Court is requested to fix up a Court of Competent
jurisdiction.
We
direct the State Government to appoint another Public Prosecutor and it shall
be open to the affected persons to suggest any name which may also be taken
into account in the decision to so appoint. Though the witnesses or the victims
do not have any choice in the normal course to have a say in the matter of
appointment of a Public Prosecutor, in view of the unusual factors noticed in
this case, to accord such liberties to the complainants party, would be
appropriate.
The
fees and all other expenses of the public prosecutor who shall be entitled to
assistance of one lawyer of his choice shall initially be paid by the State of Maharashtra,
who will thereafter be entitled to get the same reimbursed from the State of
Gujarat. The State of Gujarat shall ensure that all the documents and records
are forthwith transferred to the Court nominated by the Chief Justice of the
Bombay High Court. The State of Gujarat shall also ensure that the witnesses
are produced before the concerned Court whenever they are required to attend
that Court. Necessary protection shall be afforded to them so that they can
depose freely without any apprehension of threat or coercion from any person.
In case, any witness asks for protection, the State of Maharashtra shall also
provide such protection as deemed necessary, in addition to the protection to
be provided for by the State of Gujarat. All expenses necessary for the trial
shall be initially borne by the State of Maharashtra, to be reimbursed by the
State of Gujarat.
Since
we have directed re-trial it would be desirable to the investigating agency or
those supervising the investigation, to act in terms of Section 173(8) of the
Code, as the circumstances seem to or may so warrant. The Director General of
Police, Gujarat is directed to monitor re-investigation, if any, to be taken up
with the urgency and utmost sincerity, as the circumstances warrant.
Sub-section
(8) of Section 173 of the Code permits further investigation, and even de hors
any direction from the Court as such, it is open to the police to conduct proper
investigation, even after the Court took cognizance of any offence on the
strength of a police report earlier submitted.
Before
we part with the case it would be appropriate to note some disturbing factors.
The High Court after hearing the appeal directed its dismissal on 26.12.2003
indicating in the order that the reasons were to be subsequently given, because
the Court was closing for winter holidays. This course was adopted "due to
paucity of time". We see no perceivable reason for the hurry. The accused
were not in custody. Even if they were in custody, the course adopted was not
permissible. This Court has in several cases deprecated the practice adopted by
the High Court in the present case.
About
two decades back this Court in State of Punjab v. Jagdev Singe Talwandi (AIR
1984 SC 444) had inter alia observed as follows :
"We
would like to take this opportunity to point out that serious difficulties
arise on account of the practice increasingly adopted by the High Courts of
pronouncing the final order without a reasoned judgment. It is desirable that
the final order which the High Court intends to pass should not be announced
until a reasoned judgment is ready for pronouncement.
Suppose,
for example, that a final order without a reasoned judgment is announced by the
High Court that a house shall be demolished, or that the custody of a child
shall be handed over to one parent as against the other, or that a person
accused of a serious charge is acquitted, or that a statute is unconstitutional
or, as in the instant case, that a detenu be released from detention. If the
object of passing such orders is to ensure speedy compliance with them, that
object is more often defeated by the aggrieved party filing a special leave
petition in this Court against the order passed by the High Court. That places
this Court in a predicament because, without the benefit of the reasoning of
the High Court, it is difficult for this Court to allow the bare order to be
implemented.
The
result inevitably is that the operation of the order passed by the High Court
has to be stayed pending delivery of the reasoned judgment." It may be
thought that such orders are passed by this Court and, therefore, there is no
reason why the High Courts should not do the same. We would like to point out
that the orders passed by this Court are final and no further appeal lies
against them. The Supreme Court is the final Court in the hierarchy of our
Courts. Orders passed by the High Court are subject to the appellate
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution and other
provisions of the concerned statutes. We thought it necessary to make these
observations so that a practice which is not a very desirable one and which
achieves no useful purpose may not grow out of and beyond its present infancy.
What is still more baffling is that written arguments of the State were filed
on 29.12.2003 and by the accused persons on 1.1.2004.
A
grievance is made that when the petitioner in Criminal Revision No.583 of 2003
wanted to file notes of arguments that were not accepted making a departure
from the cases of the State and the accused. If the written arguments were to
be on record, it is not known as to why the High Court dismissed the appeal. If
it had already arrived at a particular view there was no question of filing
written arguments.
The
High Court appears to have miserably failed to maintain the required judicial
balance and sobriety in making unwarranted references to personalities and
their legitimate moves before competent courts - the highest court of the
nation, despite knowing fully well that it could not deal with such aspects or
matters. Irresponsible allegations, suggestions and challenges may be made by
parties, though not permissible or pursued defiantly during course of arguments
at times with the blessings or veiled support of the Presiding Officers of
Court. But, such besmirching tacts, meant as innuendos or serve as surrogacy
ought not to be made or allowed to be made, to become part of solemn judgments,
of at any rate by High Courts, which are created as Court of record as well.
Decency, decorum and judicial discipline should never be made casualties by
adopting such intemperate attitudes of judicial obstinacy.
The
High Court also made some observations and remarks about persons/constitutional
bodies like NHRC who were not before it. We had an occasion to deal with this
aspect to certain extent in the appeal relating to SLP (Crl.) Nos. 530-
532/2004. The move adopted and manner of references made, in para no. 3 of the
judgment except the last limb (sub-para) is not in good taste or decorous. It
may be noted that certain reference is made therein or grievances purportedly
made before the High Court about role of NHRC. When we asked Mr. Sushil Kumar
who purportedly made the submissions before the High Court, during the course
of hearing, he stated that he had not made any such submission as reflected in
the judgment. This is certainly intriguing. Proceedings of the court normally
reflect the true state of affairs. Even if it is accepted that any such
submission was made, it was not proper or necessary for the High Court to refer
to them in the judgment, to finally state that no serious note was taken of the
submissions. Avoidance of such manoeuvres would have augured well with the
judicial discipline. We order the expunging and deletion of the contents of para
3 of the judgment except the last limb of the sub-para therein and it shall be
always read to have not formed part of the judgment.
A plea
which was emphasised by Mr. Tulsi relates to the desirability of restraint in
publication/exhibition of details relating to sensitive cases, more
particularly description of alleged accused persons in the
print/electronic/broadcast medias. According to him, "media trial"
causes indelible prejudice to the accused persons.
This
is sensitive and complex issue, which we do not think it proper to deal in
detail in these appeals. The same may be left open for an appropriate case
where the media is also duly and effectively represented.
If the
accused persons were not on bail at the time of conclusion of the trial, they
shall go back to custody, if on the other hand they were on bail that order
shall continue unless modified by the concerned Court. Since we are directing a
re-trial, it would be appropriate if same is taken up on day-to-day basis
keeping in view the mandate of Section 309 of the Code and completed by the end
of December 2004.
The
appeals are allowed on the terms and to the extent indicated above.
Back
Pages: 1 2