Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Jul 17, 2003

About Us
Contact Us
Opinion
News: Front Page | National | Southern States | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous |
Advts:
Classifieds | Employment | Obituary |

Opinion - Letters to the Editor Printer Friendly Page   Send this Article to a Friend

Best Bakery case

Sir, — The acquittal of the accused in the Best Bakery case has been widely criticised on the ground that there has been miscarriage of justice and that the witnesses gave evidence under fear and threat. Now, there is a demand for a re-trial of the case with the further condition that the re-trial should be conducted outside Gujarat. The volte-face of the prime witness and her statement in Mumbai that what she had told the court was not true has made the demand for a re-trial pronounced.

However, one should take a totally detached look at the issue. It is a known fact that witnesses in many criminal cases face threat. That should not be the ground for ordering a re-trial or changing the jurisdiction of the trial court. While the culprits should not be allowed to go scot-free, it is equally essential that innocents should not be punished. How does one know that the prime witnesses are not under pressure to retract their earlier stand?

It was the Godhra carnage that fuelled the communal cauldron in Gujarat. The perpetrators of the carnage have to be first brought to justice. This would lend credence to the impartiality of the perception that we do not make distinction among culprits.

K. Ramachandra Rao,
Mysore, Karnataka

Sir, — Though the concern over the acquittal of all the 21 accused by the Vadodara fast track court is an indication of the flaws in our criminal justice system, the issue ultimately turns around to how the case can be reopened. A person once convicted or acquitted cannot be tried for the same offence.

Of course, the Government can prefer an appeal, but its fate is uncertain and unpredictable. The High Court can take up the matter suo motu in exercise of its powers under revisional jurisdiction and prevent illegality and miscarriage of justice, but the scope of such jurisdiction under the code is limited. Re-trial can be ordered when there is patent illegality or grave miscarriage of justice to the satisfaction of a superior court.

V.K. Sathyavan Nair,
Kottayam, Kerala

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

Opinion

News: Front Page | National | Southern States | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous |
Advts:
Classifieds | Employment | Obituary |


The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription
Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | Home |

Copyright © 2003, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu