Opinion - Letters to the Editor   

Best Bakery verdict

The Best Bakery verdict, awarding life imprisonment to 9 out of the 17 accused, reinforces the people's faith in the administration of criminal justice. As a lawyer, I feel happy that justice has been done in the case, despite intermittent flip-flops by key witnesses. The notice to Zahira Sheikh and others who gave false evidence that harmed the image of Teesta Setalvad, activist who exposed the facts behind Zahira's adverse evidence in Vadodara, is a move in the right direction.

B.N. Rajamohamed,
Madurai, T.N.

The Mumbai sessions court's notice to all witnesses who turned hostile would have been a stare decisis (to stand by things decided) had it been issued by the apex court. Judge Abhay Thipsay proved that his court is not only a court of law but a court of justice too. Justice emerged in the Best Bakery case because the judge looked at it through the prism of dharma and followed the dictum fiat justitia, ruat coelum (Let justice be done though heavens fall).

P.N. Ramachandran,
Kozhikode, Kerala

While one is delighted that justice delayed in the case was not justice denied, there are many other cases that fall flat because of witnesses turning hostile. Most of them are buried because the victims have no resources to fight.

H.P. Murali,
Bangalore

What was not done in the Jessica Lal murder case was done in the long-drawn out Best Bakery case. Witnesses were hostile, and investigative agencies functioned under duress in both cases. Both were fought in sessions court. The shifting of the Best Bakery case from Gujarat to Mumbai made the difference. The Jessica Lal case too could be shifted to a court outside Delhi to get justice.

R. Ramarathinam,
Pondicherry

Justice has seemingly been done in the Best Bakery case. But the darker side to it such as the circumstances leading to the transfer of the case to another State, key witnesses turning hostile, and attempts to malign a person who fought for justice masks the merit of the case.

K.K. Cherian,
Bangalore

During the trial in Vadodara, Zahira said she did not recognise those who set fire to the bakery. She was called a hostile witness by the media. When she became a prime witness after a case was filed in the Supreme Court challenging the fast-track court verdict, she changed her testimony but she was not accused of lying. But she was described as a liar by the media when she changed her testimony during the Mumbai trial. Why were only nine convicted in the end? Does it mean the others did nothing? Did not one of them commit even a minor offence?

Mohan Shenoy,
Bangalore

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

Stories in this Section

A sense of complacency
Ploughing a lonely furrow
The nuclear deal: what if it falls through?
George Bush go home
"We cannot accept safeguards on our indigenous fast breeder programme"
Ethical clothes?
Best Bakery verdict
Understandable
Bush visit
Bihar can change
Unfortunate

Copyright © 2006, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu