2006 (41 )AIC914 (S.C. ), AIR2006 SC 1367 , AIR2006 SC 1367 , 2006 (1 )ALD(Cri)559 , 2005 (Suppl. ) ACC 386 , 2006 ((2) )ALT(Cri)287 , 2006 (2 )ALT(Cri)287 , I (2006 )CCR193 (SC ), 2006 (1 )CLJ(SC )328 , 2006 CriLJ1694 , (2006 )2 GLR1493 , JT2006 (3 )SC 399 , 2006 (2 )KLT350 (SC ), 2006 (I )OLR721 , 2006 (I )OLR(SC )721 , 2006 (3 )PLJR83 , 2006 (2 )RCR(Criminal)448 , 2006 (3 )SCALE104 , (2006 )3 SCC374 , ,MANU/SC/1344/2006
Arijit Pasayat#H.K. Sema#2390SC3390Judgment/OrderACR#AIC#AIR#AIR#ALD(Cri)#Allahabad Criminal Cases#ALT (Criminal)#ALT (Criminal)#CCR#CLJ#CriLJ#Gujarat Law Reporter#JT#KLT#MANU#OLR#OLR#PLJR#RCR (Criminal)#SCALE#SCCArijit Pasayat,SUPREME COURT OF INDIA2012-9-24Preamble of Evidence Act, 1872,Examination-in-chief,Examination-in-chief,Examination-in-chief,Examination-in-chief,Examination-in-chief,Judge's power to put questions or order production.,Judge's power to put questions or order production.,Judge's power to put questions or order production.,Judge's power to put questions or order production.,Protection of life and personal liberty,Right to Freedom,Fundamental Rights,Law of Evidence,Constitution of India16841,16599,17051,17067,56081,16757,15647,15652,15689 -->
MANU/SC/1344/2006
True Court CopyTM EnglishTrue Court CopyTM Gujarati
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Criminal Appeal Nos. 446-449 of 2004 and Criminal Misc. Petition Nos. 6658-6661 of 2004 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 446-449 of 2004
Decided On: 08.03.2006
Appellants: Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and Ors. Vs. Respondent: State of Gujarat and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Dr. Arijit Pasayat and H.K. Sema JUDGMENT
Criminal Mis. Petition Nos. 6658-6661 of 2004 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 446-449 of 2004
Arijit Pasayat, J.
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 Habibullah hereinafter referred to as 'Zahira and another namely, Teesta Setelwad' 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 c........