FULL TEXT
Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Anr V/s State of Gujarat & Ors
Full text of the judgment in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Anr V/s State of Gujarat & Ors in which the Supreme Court set a precedent by imposing punishment for perjury for Zahira Sheikh.
"75. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, and the ample evidence on record, glaringly demonstrating subversion of justice delivery system 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.
Order dated 10.1.2005
Crl.M.P. Nos.6658-6661 of 2004
CHART NO. 1 Receipts
S.N | Amt (Rs) | Remarks | |
1. | 50,000 40,000 | Received as compensation of her sister's death | |
2. | 25,000 | Received as damages of the house. | |
3. | 30,000 | Received from insurance company against damages of motorcycle | |
4. | 18,800 | Received as sale price of one three-wheeler | |
5. | 6,296 | Receipts from clearing zone- Received as interest against bond of which has been alleged to be purchased out of the balance amount of Damages of sister's death. | |
2,02,096 | TOTAL |
S.N | Amt (Rs) | Remarks | |
1. | 45,000 | Deposited by her in the Bank Account No. 11348 with Bank of Baroda, Nawapura Branch at Vadodara | |
2. | 52,045 | Deposits in a joint account No. 16754 with her brother, Nasibullah with Syndicate Bank, Goddev Branch, Bhayander | |
3. | 1,37,384 | Deposits in her brother's account No. 16667 with Syndicate Bank, Goddev Branch, Bhayander | |
4. | 1,42,256 | Deposits in her mother's account No. 16669 with Syndicate Bank, Goddev Branch, Bhayander. | |
5. | 73,000 | Purchase of two plots and construction to the tune of Rs. 66,000/- and spent Rs. 7,000/- on renovation of best bakery building. | |
6. | 60,000 | Invested against a flat of Bombay | |
7. | 48,000 | Deposited on 14.5.2003 with Bank account (A/c. No. 2037) of Sh. Nafitullah | |
8. | 30,727 | Mother's account (A/c. No. 8881) | |
5,88,412 | TOTAL |
"In view of the all, as discussed above, the fact which can be accepted as highly probable, that money has exchanged hands and that was the main inducement responsible which made Ms. Zahira to state in a particular way in Trial Court, Vadodara although threat could have also played a role in reaching at an agreement. However, the element of threat cannot be altogether ruled out. One cannot loose sight of the fact that first contact over cell phone was made by Sh. Madhu Srivastava and Sh. Bharat Thakkar and not by Sh. Nafitullah. The evidence of Sh. Abhishek Kapoor about presence of Sh. Madhu Srivastava, MLA, in the Court at the time of testimony of Ms. Zahira can also be treated as an indication of this factor."
Zahira has committed contempt of this Court.
"311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person present.
"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."
"It is the merit of the common law that it decides the case first and determines the principles afterwards ..... It is only after a series of determination on the same subject- matter, that it becomes necessary to "reconcile the cases", as it is 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 any every step."
"It is desirable that the requirement of fairness be separately identified since it transcends the context 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."
"5. In the case of a defective investigation the Court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence. But 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).