Getting away with 14 Gujarat murders

Delivering his one-line pronouncement, judge H U Mahida—after 44 days of trial in his fast-track court—ordered the release of all the accused. ‘‘It’s not safe to convict the accused. There’s not an iota of evidence for that,’’ said the judge in a court that was packed, though neither the main complainant Zaheera Shaikh nor the relatives of the victims were present.

This is the first of the five major cases of post-Godhra rioting in which the verdict is out.

In his 24-page judgment, the judge called the massacre as a blot on the ‘‘cultural’’ city of Vadodara. Among the 14 victims were five workers at the bakery and the wife and two daughters of one of them. Three of the workers were Hindus. The six others were Zaheera’s sister Sabira, her two uncles, and the wife and two daughters of one of the uncles.

The fate of the two uncles is still unclear: police refer to them as missing. Though it was believed that it was their bones that were found at the bakery, police said they were too charred for DNA extraction.

The trial began on May 9 and hearings were completed on June 20. What stood out in the case was the witnesses turning hostile: of the 120 witnesses named, only 73 deposed; 41 of them turned hostile.

Besides Zaheera, her mother, two brothers, and sister had deposed as witnesses. All five turned hostile.

Besides the first information report, medical reports of the injured, panchnama, inquests, and post mortem reports, some of the weapons used in the attack and forensic reports of samples collected from the spot were submitted as evidence.

The judgment says it is a common experience that in riot cases, investigation is mostly inadequate and weak. Police reaches the spot after the culprits have escaped and then picks up by-standers and presents them as accused. Investigation in such cases is shoddy, statements are fabricated, and the Best Bakery case is no different, the judgment says.

Explaining the acquittals, the judgment says even though witnesses talked of prevailing tension and material losses due to mass rioting almost all were silent on who carried out these activities.

It says: ‘‘That a violent mob caused the death of 14 people in the incident is beyond question, but the court does not have an iota of evidence about the involvement of these accused in the crime.’’

Taking cognizance of witnesses’ submissions in court, as also circumstantial evidence, the public prosecutor’s argument cannot be accepted, it says.

The judgment then mentions that the main complainant Zaheera and her family members had all turned hostile and retracted statements made to police. Ditto others produced by the police. ‘‘It seems police fabricated the statements and got them signed from the injured,’’ the judgment says.

Taking note of depositions of doctors, who had carried out inquests, as also interacted with the injured in the incident at the S.S.G. Hospital, the judgment says: ‘‘Even though doctors deposed that the injured had clearly narrated the details of incident to them, the prosecution has submitted before the court that the injured were not in a position to do so. This is unacceptable to court.’’

After the judgment, the elation was evident. While the accused were taken to jail for completion of formalities before their release, defence lawyer Rajendra Trivedi informed the press that the judgment was on expected lines.

Calling it as a landmark, Trivedi said that the innocent had been saved from the caprices of police, which had carried out shoddy investigation in the case.‘‘The actual culprits were never caught, while the innocent have been released today,’’ said Trivedi.

Government pleader Raghuvir Pandya, when contacted, said that he was yet to go through the copy of the judgment, but the next stage of appeal would be decided by te legal department of the government.

Neither former police commissioner D.D. Tuteja, who was in charge when the carnage took place, nor Inspector P.P. Kanani, who investigated the case, was willing to comment on the judgment or on the strictures passed on police. They said they hadn’t seen a copy of the judgment.