Supreme Court Orders Retrial in Best Bakery Case Citing Dishonest Investigation and Perfunctory Trial

Apex Court highlights failure of investigation and prosecution, directs transfer of trial to Maharashtra for fair justice in communal violence killing of 14 persons

In a landmark judgment delivered on April 12, 2004, the Supreme Court of India has ordered a retrial in the notorious Best Bakery case involving the brutal killing of 14 persons in Vadodara during communal riots. The Court found the original investigation and trial to be deeply flawed, dishonest, and perfunctory, leading to a miscarriage of justice.

The case, which arose from the communal violence linked to the Sabarmati Express incident, saw the Best Bakery attacked by an unruly mob resulting in the deaths of innocents including women and children. Zahira Habibulla Sheikh, a survivor and eye-witness, had alleged that she was coerced and threatened to give false testimony during the trial. She and other witnesses had turned hostile, raising serious doubts about the fairness of the proceedings.

The Supreme Court’s judgment meticulously detailed multiple grave deficiencies:

• - The investigation was tainted by bias and dishonesty, with evidence of shielding the accused rather than uncovering the truth.
• - The Public Prosecutor failed in his duty, acting more as defense counsel for the accused and not protecting star witnesses such as Zahira from threats.
• - Numerous key witnesses, including injured ones, were never examined without valid reasons, while relatives of the accused were oddly examined as prosecution witnesses.
• - The trial court conducted the trial in a perfunctory manner, failing to use its powers to recall or re-examine witnesses despite evident contradictions and hostile turns.

The Court observed that the acquittal of accused persons by the trial court and upheld by the Gujarat High Court was no acquittal in the eyes of law as it was based on tainted evidence and defective investigation. The Supreme Court emphasized that fair trial entails an impartial judge, a fair prosecutor, and a safe atmosphere for witnesses to depose truthfully, which was absent in this case.

Notably, the Court underscored the necessity of witness protection programs and the active role courts must play to ensure justice is not derailed by threats or manipulation. The judgment criticized the Gujarat High Court for dismissing the State’s application for additional evidence and retrial without proper consideration, thereby nullifying the purpose of provisions under Sections 311 and 391 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

In view of the hostile atmosphere prevailing in Gujarat and the failure of the local judicial process, the Supreme Court ordered that the retrial be conducted in the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court. It directed the State Government of Maharashtra to bear the initial costs of the retrial, with reimbursement to follow from Gujarat. The Court further mandated the appointment of a new Public Prosecutor, with the victims’ parties allowed to suggest names, and granted directions for adequate protection of witnesses by both States.

The Court called upon the Gujarat police’s Director General to monitor any reinvestigation with utmost sincerity and urgency, emphasizing that further investigation was permissible even after cognizance of the offence had been taken.

This judgment sends a strong message on the imperative of ensuring fair trials, especially in sensitive communal violence cases. The Supreme Court reaffirmed its commitment to upholding the rule of law and preventing miscarriage of justice where the State machinery fails the victims.

Statutory provisions:- Criminal Procedure Code Sections 311, 386, 391, 406, 407, 157, 156, 173(8), 231, 242, 309, 161; Indian Evidence Act Section 165; Indian Penal Code Sections 302, 148, 149; Constitution of India Articles 14, 19, 21, 22, 32, 136, 139A(2).

Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 71429