Sunday, Apr 28, 2024

24x7 Free Helpline For Men +91-888-2-498-498

Share
whatsapp

Court Name : Allahabad High Court

Law Point: Giving false evidence in fir leads perjury

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  266 OF 2007


Shriram Munjaji Raut,
age 55 years, occ. Labour,
r/o Shendra, Taluka and
District Parbhani …Appellant
[Original Witness No.2 in
Sessions Case]

VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra  …Respondent
…..
Shri  Joydeep Chatterjee, advocate for appellant (original accused)
Smt. Y.M.Kshirsagar, A.P.P.  for respondent/State
…..
CORAM  :    SHRIHARI  P.DAVARE, J.
DATED   :    14th  March, 2011
ORAL JUDGMENT  :­
1 This appeal is directed against the judgment and order,
dated 29.6.2007, rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani,
in   Criminal   Miscellaneous   Application   No.   18   of   2007,   thereby
punishing the appellant under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, for giving false evidence in Sessions Trial No. 8 of 2006,
and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months
and to pay fine of Rs.500/­, in default, rigorous imprisonment for
seven days.
2 cra266.07
2 The factual matrix, which gave rise for the present appeal,
can be summarised as under :­
Pursuant to the complaint lodged by the first informant,
namely   Shrirang   Munjaji   Raut   on   14.11.2005,   due   to   death   of
Meerabai i.e. daughter of the complainant, criminal law was set into
motion and the first information report Exh. 20 was lodged bearing
C.R. No. 178 of 2005 in respect of offence punishable under Section
306   r/w   Section   34   of   the   Indian   Penal   Code   and   the   accused
persons thereunder were tried in Sessions Trial No. 8 of 2006 by the
learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani, and the said accused persons
were acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 498­A, 306
r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3 However, the show cause notice came to be issued to
Shrirang Munjaji Raut, who was Prosecution Witness No. 2, under
Section   344   of   the   Code   of   Criminal   Procedure   for   giving   false
evidence   before   the   court,   by   the   said   learned   Sessions   Judge,
Parbhani, by the judgment and the order, dated 13.4.2007, since
learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani, arrived at the conclusion that the
said first informant, namely Shrirang Raut deposed falsely before the
said court in Sessions Trial No. 8 of 2006, and therefore, the learned
3 cra266.07
Sessions Judge observed   that in order to have faith of public in
judicial process, it is necessary to take action against him.
4 Accordingly, in pursuance of the directions, issued by the
learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani, in Sessions Trial No. 8 of 2006,
on 13.4.2007, show cause notice was issued to the said witness,
namely   Shrirang   Raut   (PW2)   under   Section   344   of   the   Code   of
Criminal Procedure, that  why action should not be taken against him
under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the offence
punishable under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code for giving
false evidence.     The said proceeding was numbered as Criminal
Miscellaneous Application No. 18 of 2007.
5 The   non­applicant,   namely   Shrirang   Munjaji   Raut
appeared in the said proceeding through the advocate and filed his
say and resisted the said proceeding.
6 Considering the evidence on record and the contents of
the first information report Exh. 20, and also considering the rival
submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and
further considering the position that giving false evidence attracts
punishment for seven years under Section 193 of the Indian Penal
Code, learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani, by judgment and order
4 cra266.07
dated 29.6.2007,  passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.
18 of 2007, punished the non­applicant under Section 344 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure for giving false evidence in Sessions
Trial   No.   8   of   2006   and   sentenced   him   to   suffer   rigorous
imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.500/­, in default
to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for seven days.
7 Being aggrieved  and dissatisfied by the said  judgment
and order, dated 29.6.2007, the appellant has preferred the present
appeal and prayed for quashment thereof.
8 Admittedly, the appellant herein was Prosecution Witness
No. 2 in Sessions Trial No. 8 of 2006 before the Sessions Court,
Parbhani, who had lodged the first information report Exh. 20, due to
death of his daughter, namely Meerabai, under Sections 498­A, 306
r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
9 Learned   Sessions   Judge,   Parbhani,   scrutinized   the
evidence on record and also assessed the testimony of PW2 i.e.
non­applicant/appellant herein, namely Shrirang Munjaji  Raut and
observed that the matter is settled out of court and close relatives,
like father and mother of the deceased, did not support the case of
deceased, though father of deceased, namely Shrirang Munjaji Raut
5 cra266.07
i.e. appellant herein had submitted first information report Exh. 20
and set law into motion, and consequently, offence was registered
and accused were arrested for the offence under Sections 498­A,
306 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code,  but the appellant herein resiled
from his allegations in the complaint.  Moreover, he was exposed in
the cross­examination and it was revealed in his evidence that the
contents of his report, when explained to him, were false and he
denied the report Exh.20, which was recorded by the police as per
his say, and considering his conduct, learned Trial Court arrived at
the conclusion that  the appellant herein deposed falsely before the
court and further observed that in order to have faith of public in
judicial   process,   it   was   necessary   to   take   action   against   him.
Accordingly, since Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
empowers   the   court   to   take   action   against   the   witnesses   who
deposed   falsely   before   the   court   and   further   observed   that   it   is
necessary that proceeding under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure for the offence punishable under Section 193 of the Indian
Penal Code is required to be initiated against the appellant herein,
and consequently, gave directions to issue show cause notice to the
appellant under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for
giving false evidence before the court that why he should not be
punished under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, as mentioned
herein above.
6 cra266.07
10 Sum and substance of the matter is that the appellant
herein has retracted from his report Exh. 20, although he has filed
the same, whereupon criminal law was set into motion, by giving
false evidence before the court.
11 Hence, learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani has taken the
cognizance   of   the   offence   and   after   giving   due   and   reasonable
opportunity to the appellant of showing cause why he should not be
punished for said offence, gave summary trial to him and sentenced
him for imprisonment for the term of three months and imposed fine
of Rs.500/­ upon him, under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
12 In   the   said   context,   Shri   Joydeep   Chatterjee,   learned
counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant is 77 years old
person and his one daughter namely Meerabai is already expired
and his another daughter got married during the pendency of the
appeal and his third daughter, namely Muktabai is mentally retarded
person living with him.  Moreover,  Shri Chatterjee, learned counsel
for the  appellant also submitted that deceased daughter Meerabai
has got two daughters, namely Shruti and Surekha and  their entire
responsibility is upon the appellant herein.  It is also submitted that
the appellant is a poor person, and therefore, claimed for leniency in
7 cra266.07
sentencing   the   appellant   and   submitted   that   the   appellant   has
already deposited fine amount of Rs.500/­ in court on the date of
judgment itself i.e. on 29.6.2007, but as regards the sentence of
rigorous imprisonment for three months, prayed that it be reduced to
one day i.e. till rising of the court, considering the afore said genuine
difficulties of the appellant.
13 Smt. Y.M.Kshirsagar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
opposed   the present appeal vehemently and submitted that in fact,
the   appellant   should   have   been   tried   for   the   offence   punishable
under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code for giving the false
evidence   before   the   court,   but   the   learned   Sessions   Judge,
Parbhani, while rendering the judgment and order, dated 13.4.2007
in Sessions Trial No. 8 of 2006, directed to issue show cause notice
to   the   appellant   under   Section     344   of   the   Code   of   Criminal
Procedure for giving false evidence before the court and invoked the
summary   procedure   for   trial   for   giving   the   false   evidence   under
Section   344   of   the   Code   of   Criminal   Procedure,   which   attracts
punishment of rigorous imprisonment for three months and ceiling of
fine   amount of Rs.500/­, which has been already awarded to the
appellant, which is proper and would meet the ends of justice and no
interference therein is warranted in the appellate jurisdiction.
8 cra266.07
15 Considering   the   rival   submissions   advanced   by   the
learned counsel for the parties, admittedly  direction was issued by
the learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani while rendering the judgment
and order in Sessions Trial No. 8 of 2006 on 13.4.2007, but issued
show cause notice to the appellant under Section 344 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure for giving false evidence before the court that
why he should not be punished under Section 193 of the Indian
Penal Code and learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani has invoked the
summary procedure  for trial for giving false evidence under Section
344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the State has not filed
any appeal against the said judgment and order.   Accordingly, the
appellant was tried in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 18 of
2007   summarily   under   Section   344   of   the   Code   of   Criminal
Procedure for giving false evidence before the court and took the
cognizance   of   the   offence   after   giving   the   appellant   reasonable
opportunity of showing cause why he should not be punished for
such offence and sentenced him for imprisonment for the term of
three   months   and   also   imposed   fine   of   Rs.500/­   upon   him.
Admittedly, there is ceiling upon the fine amount under Section 344
of the Code of Criminal Procedure at Rs. 500/­ and maximum fine
amount   has   been   imposed   upon   him,   which   has   been   already
deposited by him on 29.6.2007 i.e. the date of judgment and order.
9 cra266.07
16 As regards the punishment imposed upon the appellant
by sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months,
and   considering   the   rival   submissions   advanced   by   the   learned
counsel for the respective parties in that respect, and considering the
advance age of the appellant and the dependants upon him and also
considering the fact that he has given the false evidence, which
deserves   proper and appropriate signal to the society that   giving
false   evidence   cannot   be   tolerated   and   also   while   striking   the
balance between them, I am of the view that imposition of rigorous
imprisonment for one month upon the appellant instead of rigorous
imprisonment for three months would meet the ends of justice.
17 In the result, present appeal  is allowed partly and the
order of awarding punishment to the appellant under Section 344 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure for giving false evidence in Sessions
Trial No. 8 of 2006 is confirmed, but  the sentence of three months
rigorous   imprisonment   awarded   to   the   appellant   by   the   learned
Sessions Judge, Parbhani is modified and the appellant is directed to
suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month instead of three months,
and the fine of Rs.500/­ imposed upon the appellant is maintained
and the order to that effect passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Parbhani   stands   confirmed,   and   the   appeal   is   disposed   of
accordingly.  The appellant to surrender before the learned Sessions
10 cra266.07
Judge,  Parbhani   within  three  weeks  from  the  date  of   this  order,
failing   which   the   learned   Sessions   Judge,   Parbhani     shall   take
suitable action against the appellant, in accordance with law.  Office
to communicate the afore said order to the learned Sessions Judge,
Parbhani forthwith.
(SHRIHARI P. DAVARE),
JUDGE.
dbm/cra266.07

Quick Links
Tags
Quash
HMA
IPC 302
Legal Terrorism
Divorce
323
RCR
CrPC 127
CrPC 294
HMA-24
Passport
False Allegations
Caveat
No neighbor examined.
DV-Act
No relief to people who come to courts with unclean hands
Dowry
CrPC 340
Dowry Death
Police Custody
Order 41 Rule 5 CPC
Quashing 498a
IPC 406
CrPC 468
IPC 304
Child Custody
RTI
HMA 25
306
IPC 376
False affidavit
prohibition
NCRB
Section 376
No Independent witness examined
clubbing all cases in single court
IndianPenalCode
IPC 375
156(3)
Bail
DP Act
Maintenance dismissed
IPC 323
322
Car to husband
Stay by Appellate Court
unclean hands
IPC 334
504
CrPC 128
FIR
Maintenance
IPC 354
CrPC 340 - Perjury
Diet Money
IPC 506
CrPC 161
CrPC 319
Cooling period
498a
Vague Allegations
41a
Passport
CrPC 41
Dowry Misuse
CrPC 313
406
Wife earning
IPC
Mutual Consent Divorce
No Proper Source of funds of dowry.
False Case
IPC 497
Electronic evidence
CrPC 126
EXEMPT FROM PERSONAL APPEARANCE
No maintenance to deserting wife
Judicial Custody

Knowledge and content of about almost all their respective descriptions are borrowed from law related blogs and websites. We, therefore, wish to give proper credit to all the respective law-related blogs and websites like LiveLaw, Bar and Bench, LatestLaws, PathLegal, FirstLaw, LawOctopus, IndianKanoon, Manupatra, LegallyIndia etc. Many of the judgements are also taken from the websites of Hon'ble Supreme Court and other respective Hon'ble High Courts!

Copyright © 2019-20 SIF Chandigarh. All Rights Reserved