The Hindu : Fixing witnesses?

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Tuesday, Jul 01, 2003

Opinion

Opinion - Editorials

Fixing witnesses?

THE ACQUITTAL OF all the 21 accused in the Best Bakery fire, which was part of the post-Godhra Gujarat carnage, is the culmination of a sloppy prosecution marred by interference from members of the ruling establishment. After crucial witnesses turned hostile during the trial in the fast-track court in Vadodara, the Best Bakery case was perhaps fated to fail. But the intervention of a BJP member of the Assembly, Madhu Shrivastava, who escorted the main complainant, Zahira Sheikh, to the court on the day she went back on her charges, raises apprehensions about intimidation of witnesses having played a decisive role in the outcome of the trial. Mr. Shrivastava, who claimed he was only "protecting" Zahira Sheikh and her family from anti-social elements, was present in the court through the trial. Indeed, he showed a more than ordinary interest in clearing the accused of the charges originally made by those in his "protection". The trial took on a farcical character with some of the witnesses describing as "saviours" the very same persons whom they had initially identified as the perpetrators of the crime. The facts and circumstances of the fire, which claimed at least 12 human lives, were well documented with the survivors recounting their ordeal before the National Human Rights Commission, the Government-appointed Commission of Inquiry, the Concerned Citizens Tribunal and the national media. However, everything changed the moment Mr. Shrivastava came on the scene and took the witnesses in his "protective" custody.

The acquittal aside, what is disconcerting is that the sessions judge, H.U. Mahida, made no comment about the conduct of the witnesses. The prosecution was faulted, not for its inability to fix the charges on the accused, but for "fabricating" the accounts of the witnesses. Investigation of any riot case is difficult, as the police have to rely almost entirely on the accounts of the witnesses. In the Bakery case, Zahira Sheikh had voluntarily deposed against the accused in several public fora before retracting her deposition in court. That should have been sufficient cause for suspecting manipulation of the judicial process. To add to the intrigue, Zahira Sheikh was not immediately traceable after the verdict. In an already terrorised atmosphere, as in post-Godhra Gujarat, the witnesses are no doubt susceptible to intimidation and influence. Unfortunately, this aspect does not appear to have received the required attention during the trial stage.

If such a high-profile case can collapse so easily, there is reason to believe that other cases registered in connection with the Gujarat riots might go the same way. If anything, the interference of the ruling establishment would be more in cases on the Naroda-Patiya and Gulmarg Society incidents, in which ruling party MLAs and VHP and Bajrang Dal leaders have been listed as accused. As the former Union Minister and National Conference leader, Omar Abdullah, has pointed out, the acquittal contrasts sharply with the detention, under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, of the accused in the Godhra train-burning case. In the end, the verdict in the Bakery case has only contributed to scepticism about a free investigation of the riots followed by a fair trial of the accused. Thus, it is imperative for the Government legal department to take steps to appeal against the acquittal. Otherwise, allegations of State complicity in the post-Godhra pogroms will stand confirmed, and the Bakery case will be a dangerous precedent for witnesses and investigators.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

Stories in this Section

Fixing witnesses?

The mysteries of Mars

Misleading the people

Of land, people and security