The prosecution’s case was that the FIR was lodged on November 11, 2006, at the Godhra town police station under The Foreigners Act, 1946, and the chargesheet was filed on January 23, 2007. The prosecution had contended the accused holds a Pakistani passport that was valid up to May 11, 2009.

The accused had sought a visitors’ visa for India from October 7, 2005, to January 1, 2006, which only allowed her to stay in New Delhi for 30 days, but she had been living in Godhra since December 17, 2005, in violation of the visa conditions.

Supported by four Supreme Court precedents, where foreign nationals had been acquitted in similar cases, the defence argued that the accused must be acquitted as she had not committed any crime. The defence also argued that her father is an Indian national and she should be considered an Indian national as per the Citizenship Act. Moreover, she had married an Indian national residing in Godhra, it added.

Mohammad Ismail Mamda, who claimed to be the father of the accused, stated in his deposition that he left Pakistan in 1971 and has been a resident of Godhra since the 1980s. According to Mamda, his daughter was taken and raised in Pakistan for 11 years before she returned to India. Mamda provided documents proving his Indian citizenship but said he was “unaware” of how his daughter arrived in India.

The court observed the accused’s husband, Siddiq Farahim Surati, a Godhra resident, also “claimed to have sought a long-term visa for his wife but did not inform the same to the police during the investigation and cannot provide any proof on record about the application”. According to the documentary evidence, the court observed that the accused was born in Karachi in 1977, her father’s name was Muhammad Bhatuk, and her Pakistani passport was that of Godhra Colony in New Karachi. The court also held that the accused failed to prove she was born in India and was taken away to Pakistan in her childhood.

The court said the Indian citizenship held by Mamda was questionable as he was a former Pakistani national living in Godhra and the citizenship was sought through a court order.

Stating that the defence had failed to prove that the applicant was an Indian national, the court said, “A Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished, A Judge also presides to see that the guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties. The proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a mere guideline and not a fetish. Reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial, or merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. Therefore, the reasonable doubt should be cleared by the records and not be imaginary.”

The court further laid the onus of proof on the accused and said, “When a person claims to have Indian Citizenship, the burden of proving the citizenship lies on the individual… The prosecution has been able to prove that the accused had been living in India illegally without any permit or visa.”
The court said the days the accused spent in custody after her arrest would be accounted for in the two-year sentence.