The Crossbill News Desk
The Supreme Court has reopened scrutiny of the acquittal of 22 accused in the Sohrabuddin Shaikh-Kausar Bi alleged fake encounter case, with a three-judge bench deciding to examine selected witness statements and the circumstances surrounding the trial. The move comes after the Bombay High Court upheld the acquittals in May this year.
“We would like to see statements of some witnesses. We are not summoning the record… You give us whatever 3-4 statements you feel are vital. We will examine acquittal,” Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said while hearing the matter on Monday (September 28).
The bench, comprising CJI Kant and Justices Joymalya Baghchi and V. Mohana, directed that notices be issued to the 22 acquitted persons.
The court's attention was drawn in particular to the fact that 92 prosecution witnesses had turned hostile during the trial.
Justice Bagchi observed during the hearing, “ninety-two witnesses turning hostile is a serious concern. Although it was a concurrent finding, whether there was a fair and just trial – that is to be considered”, Live Law reported.
The case concerns the deaths of businessman Sohrabuddin Shaikh, his wife Kausar Bi and Tulsiram Prajapati, an associate of Shaikh. Prajapati, who was described as the sole surviving witness to the alleged abductions and killings, was subsequently killed in another encounter while in police custody. The three cases have been heard together since 2013.
A witness turning hostile means that the person does not support, during testimony in court, the version contained in the earlier statement relied upon by the prosecution. In this case, the large number of hostile witnesses became a significant feature of the proceedings and was cited in the subsequent acquittal orders.
The Supreme Court, however, made it clear that it would not revisit the discharge of Union home minister Amit Shah in connection with the case.
CJI Kant, according to Live Law, noted: “Para 43, we will not examine. We will not allow this kind of…”.
Paragraph 43 of the Bombay High Court judgment dealt with an application filed in 2026 seeking to challenge Shah’s discharge in December 2014.
The High Court had described the application as “led with an oblique motive and [filed] at the instance of some political adversary of Shah’s.” The CBI had also opposed the application.
The Bombay High Court, while upholding the acquittals on May 7, said the trial court had applied the correct legal principles and that its conclusions were not contrary to the evidence and documents on record. It also noted that 92 prosecution witnesses had turned hostile and that the prosecution had failed to establish its theory of a conspiracy involving police officers and politicians.
The case has been investigated and litigated through several stages since the 2005 deaths. It was initially investigated by the Gujarat Police CID following a Supreme Court order in 2006.
In 2010, following another intervention by the Supreme Court on a plea by Sohrabuddin’s brother Rubabuddin, the CBI was directed to conduct further investigation. The Supreme Court subsequently transferred the trial from Gujarat to Maharashtra in 2012.
The CBI eventually chargesheeted 38 people, including senior police officers and politicians. However, several accused were discharged during the proceedings, while the remaining 22 were acquitted by the special court in December 2018. The CBI chose not to appeal against that acquittal at the time.
The prosecution case had alleged a criminal conspiracy behind the killings and relied substantially on circumstantial evidence, including call data records involving senior police officers.
The trial court, however, concluded that there was not an “iota of evidence” establishing the involvement of politicians or a politician-police nexus in the alleged fake encounters.
The Supreme Court's latest intervention does not amount to a finding that the acquitted persons are guilty.
Instead, the bench has sought a limited set of witness statements to examine whether the concurrent findings of the trial court and High Court require further scrutiny, particularly in light of the unusually high number of prosecution witnesses who turned hostile.
“We would like to see statements of some witnesses. We are not summoning the record… You give us whatever 3-4 statements you feel are vital. We will examine acquittal,” Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said while hearing the matter on Monday (September 28).
The bench, comprising CJI Kant and Justices Joymalya Baghchi and V. Mohana, directed that notices be issued to the 22 acquitted persons.
The court's attention was drawn in particular to the fact that 92 prosecution witnesses had turned hostile during the trial.
Justice Bagchi observed during the hearing, “ninety-two witnesses turning hostile is a serious concern. Although it was a concurrent finding, whether there was a fair and just trial – that is to be considered”, Live Law reported.
The case concerns the deaths of businessman Sohrabuddin Shaikh, his wife Kausar Bi and Tulsiram Prajapati, an associate of Shaikh. Prajapati, who was described as the sole surviving witness to the alleged abductions and killings, was subsequently killed in another encounter while in police custody. The three cases have been heard together since 2013.
A witness turning hostile means that the person does not support, during testimony in court, the version contained in the earlier statement relied upon by the prosecution. In this case, the large number of hostile witnesses became a significant feature of the proceedings and was cited in the subsequent acquittal orders.
The Supreme Court, however, made it clear that it would not revisit the discharge of Union home minister Amit Shah in connection with the case.
CJI Kant, according to Live Law, noted: “Para 43, we will not examine. We will not allow this kind of…”.
Paragraph 43 of the Bombay High Court judgment dealt with an application filed in 2026 seeking to challenge Shah’s discharge in December 2014.
The High Court had described the application as “led with an oblique motive and [filed] at the instance of some political adversary of Shah’s.” The CBI had also opposed the application.
The Bombay High Court, while upholding the acquittals on May 7, said the trial court had applied the correct legal principles and that its conclusions were not contrary to the evidence and documents on record. It also noted that 92 prosecution witnesses had turned hostile and that the prosecution had failed to establish its theory of a conspiracy involving police officers and politicians.
The case has been investigated and litigated through several stages since the 2005 deaths. It was initially investigated by the Gujarat Police CID following a Supreme Court order in 2006.
In 2010, following another intervention by the Supreme Court on a plea by Sohrabuddin’s brother Rubabuddin, the CBI was directed to conduct further investigation. The Supreme Court subsequently transferred the trial from Gujarat to Maharashtra in 2012.
The CBI eventually chargesheeted 38 people, including senior police officers and politicians. However, several accused were discharged during the proceedings, while the remaining 22 were acquitted by the special court in December 2018. The CBI chose not to appeal against that acquittal at the time.
The prosecution case had alleged a criminal conspiracy behind the killings and relied substantially on circumstantial evidence, including call data records involving senior police officers.
The trial court, however, concluded that there was not an “iota of evidence” establishing the involvement of politicians or a politician-police nexus in the alleged fake encounters.
The Supreme Court's latest intervention does not amount to a finding that the acquitted persons are guilty.
Instead, the bench has sought a limited set of witness statements to examine whether the concurrent findings of the trial court and High Court require further scrutiny, particularly in light of the unusually high number of prosecution witnesses who turned hostile.
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment