Talk:Best Bakery case

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Untitled[edit]

Nine of the 17 people charged with torching the Best Bakery in Vadodara during the post-Godhra riots killing 14 people were today convicted and awarded life imprisonment by a sessions court here.

Eight other accused in the case were acquitted by Judge, Abhay Thipsay, who conducted the retrial in the Best Bakery carnage on Supreme Court orders.

The court issued show cause notices to all the witnesses, including Zaheera Shaikh, who had turned hostile asking them to show cause why they should not be prosecuted for perjury. The notices are made returnable on March 20.

Merger from Abhay Thipse[edit]

Abhay Thipse was the judge in this case. So far as I know, that is the extent of his notability. As such, his article should be merged here. Wikipedia guidelines at People notable only for one event suggest merger. Any reason why not? --Bejnar (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move[edit]

Because much of the content was unsourced, I have moved it here. Anyone who can reference the content is welcome to do so. Note that the links provided may not be reliable, especially since there are living people involved.Bless sins (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Media glare
The case came into prominence after all the 21 accused were initially acquitted on June 27, 2003 by a "fast-track court" for lack of evidence after 37 out of the 73 witnesses, including key witness Zaheera Sheikh turned hostile. The judgement said "It was proved beyond doubt that a violent mob had attacked the bakery and killed 12 persons. However, there was no legally acceptable evidence to prove that any of the accused presented before the court had committed the crime." The judgement was critical of the police for delay in registering FIR and for not investigating the incident properly and harassing innocent people. It was reported that key witnesses in the case had lied in court out of fear for their lives as they had been given death threats. Key witnesses in the case include the wife and daughter of the bakery owner. According to their testimony to the police and the National Human Rights Commission, 500 people armed with petrol bombs had attacked the bakery. They also accused Bharatiya Janata Party and other party politicians of threatening and harassing them into withdrawing their testimony. The website of Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) has details of the case proceedings with a timeline. [1]
Reaction from the Gujarat government
The Gujarat government filed an amended appeal in the Gujarat High Court seeking retrial of the case. The appeal was admitted by the Gujarat High Court. After being indicted by the Supreme Court of India, the police registered a case against Bharatiya Janata Party legislator for intimidating the witnesses of the incident. The Government of Gujarat admitted there were lapses on the part of the police in registering and recording the FIR in the case and on the part of the prosecution in recording the evidence of witnesses. It said the police had attempted to help the accused by not submitting names of the accused.
Zaheera Sheikh retracted her statement again. She stated that the judgment passed by the Gujarat court was correct. She also stated that she had never met the above mentioned legislator. She claims that she made all the statements under the pressure of NGO activist Teesta Setalvad.
Zaheera's flipflops
The prosecution declared Zaheera Sheikh to be a hostile witness. She became the 7th witness to turn hostile in the case after her mother, sister, brothers and another two witnesses. During examination, she said that her maternal uncle Quaser was not present in the bakery when it was set on fire going against the statement she had given to the police earlier. She even claimed that she had signed the FIR without knowing its contents. A tape by Tehelka claimed that Zaheera had been bribed by a BJP MLA. Zaheera was ousted from the Muslim community on the grounds that she was lying constantly. This decision was with consent from the All India Muslim Personal Law Board. [2]
Zaheera Sheikh testified to Nanavati Commission, accusing Teesta Setalvad of keeping Zaheera in confinement and provoking her to name innocent persons as accused in the case.
The Mumbai retrial found nine of the defendants guilty and sentenced them to life imprisonment, while another eight were acquitted. The court also issued show-cause orders to Zaheera Sheikh and other witnesses who recanted their testimony to show why they should not be prosecuted for perjury. A court ordered Zahira to undergo her one-year prison term for lying under oath in a Mumbai prison.
Please also this, where I'm writing a sourced version.Bless sins (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reputation of sources in the Best Bakery case[edit]

Hi, is there a way to point out that the references considered as reliable such as these 

  3. ^ a b c d Best Bakery: Why it is so important (http://in.rediff.com/news/2006/feb/24best.htm)
  4. ^ Best Bakery case file. Tehelka (http://www.tehelka.com/story_main10.asp?filename=ts010105best_bakery_case.asp)
  6. ^ a b c India: Best Bakery case - concerns for justice. AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL PRESS RELEASE (http://www.amnesty.org/en/alfresco_asset/fd0f8b70-a452-11dc-bac9-0158df32ab50/asa200182003en.html)
 10. ^ Majumder, Sanjoy. "Gujarat and the judges' anger," 12 September, 2003. BBC news (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3104280.stm)
 11. ^ Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) (http://www.sabrang.com/cjp/best/factfile.htm)
 13. ^ Masjlis-e-Shura declares Zaheera an outcast (http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/dec/24best.htm)
 14. ^ Pandey, Geeta.'Best Bakery perjurer' surrenders. BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4784776.stm)

when it is becoming clearer that entire case could have been little more than anti-BJP Govt propaganda where witnesses were coerced and paid off, resulting in enormous waste of public expenditure, waste of time of law and police officials, conviction of innocents and not to mention the brazen anti BJP propaganda, all this going on for nine years while the officials were criticized for no fault of their own. These reliable sources(sources not the websites) in 9 years have no time to find out what even uneducated poor misdirected witnesses who were coerced are now disclosing, and perhaps take another decade to mention the current situation! So how do you point this all out or we just keep on avoiding to consider this and keep mentioning these sources as reliable?Thisthat2011 (talk) 07:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

that is a valid question. I think these references can be used to narrate certain observations but may not be used as absolute WP:NPOV. @AmritasyaPutra: - what is your opinion since you are aware of WP:RS requirements? --Sdmarathe (talk) 06:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the concern is genuine but we need to check it against the article now as this section is quite old. First we need to identify the pov and find suitable content change that can be done or if another reference has more information since then (or even otherwise). --AmritasyaPutraT 07:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - unreliable citations are always an issue, especially in such cases. However, I think we should present both sides of the case in order to keep the neutral tone of the article (though this becomes difficult when cases related to the killings of innocent people are concerned).
I think there are 2 ways to resolve this -
1) Reword all statements that appear to sound polemic "example: "...the SIT could not find one shred of evidence..." / "the SIT completely absolved Modi of any guilt..." etc. Rather than elete such statements, it is better to write them in a neutral manner that presents facts. Also peacock words need to go - I have started this, and would appreciate help in the same.
2) The references you have mentioned all seem ok. To me, Sabrang and the Hindu seem most reliable, and now, The Wire and similar unbiased media. BBC and rediff are ok. Any blogs are unreliable and should not be included (unless they are blogs of eminent people like Teesta Setalvad). Ditto for mirror news sites that just publish what they have been paid for.Notthebestusername (talk) 07:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hindu terrorism[edit]

@MohitSingh, Jason from nyc, and Sdmarathe: the category has been added[3] saying "How come one say that Rioting is Not a form of terror?" in the edit summary. I do not see the article make a connection to "terrorism" and the event is not discussed in journals as "Terrorism". It isn't a categorical descriptor of the event. What is your view? --AmritasyaPutraT 01:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree AmritasyaPutra. I am not sure why this user Irshadpp is basically using HotCat and adding this category to a lot of articles without specific WP:RS. This was added very recently using Hotcat - and I disagree adding this category like that. That user has not even participated in previous Talk regarding this categorizations when asked for his/her input. --Sdmarathe (talk) 06:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is not currently a normally used phrase, I would rather write this as "..... XXX termed this as a form of terrorism" - with the citation. Also, I am not sure if internal strife and communal riots sponsored by large political parties is usually termed as terrorism (Do we term similar pogroms by the Nazis from 1931 to 1945 as terrorism?). Just some food for thought... Notthebestusername (talk) 09:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Best Bakery case. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Best Bakery case. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edits of July 2017 and need to format citations[edit]

I was watching Teesta Setalvad's talk at the Press club and have made edits based on information given by her, corroborated by other sources.

However, many citations that have been palced from earlier need to be reformatted - for example here. can someone please help reformat them properly?

Thank you Notthebestusername (talk) 07:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Best_Bakery_case&oldid=1199918455"