ZAHIRA HABIBULLAH SHEIKH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case at hand immediately brings into mind two stanzas (14 and 18) of Eighth Chapter of Manu Samhita dealing with role of witnesses. THEy read as follows: "Stanza 14 "Jatro dharmo hyadharmena Satyam jatranrutenacha Hanyate prekshyamananam Hatastrata sabhasadah" (Where in the presence of Judges "dharma" is overcome by "adharma" and "truth" by "unfounded falsehood", at that place they (the Judges) are destroyed by sin) Stanza 18 "Padodharmasya kartaram Padah sakshinomruchhati Padah sabhasadah sarban pado rajanmruchhati" (In the adharma flowing from wrong decision in a Court of law, one fourth each is attributed to the person committing the adharma, witness, the judges and the ruler".)

(2.) THIS case has its matrix in an appeal filed by Zahira Habibuliah hereinafter referred to as Zahira and Another namely, Teesta Setalvad' and another appeal filed by the State of Gujarat. In the appeals filed before this court, the basic focus was on the absence of an atmosphere conducive to fair trial. Zahira who was projected as the star witness made a grievance that she was intimidated, threatened and coerced to depart from the truth and to make statement in court which did not reflect the reality. The trial court on the basis of the statements made by the witnesses in court directed acquittal of the accused persons. Before the Gujarat High Court an application under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code') highlighting the necessity for accepting additional evidence was filed. The foundation was the statement made by Zahira. The High Court did not accept the prayer and that is why the appeals came to be filed in this Court. By judgment dated 12th April, 2004 in Zahira Habibuliah Sheikh and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors., the following directions were given:

(3.) CONSIDERING the materials placed before the Inquiry Officer, he has submitted his report. Parties were permitted to file statements indicating their views so far as the report is concerned. The findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer with reference to various documents are essentially as follows: