Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Shriram S/o Nathu Jadhav, was the informant and sole eye-witness in a murder trial (Sessions Trial No. 34/2007) against his brother for the murder of Kiran. During the trial, the appellant turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case, leading to the acquittal of the accused. The trial court, in its judgment, observed that the appellant had intentionally given false evidence to save his brother and recorded its satisfaction that he should be tried summarily for perjury under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The court issued a show cause notice and summons to the appellant. The appellant appeared and submitted a written explanation stating that he had given evidence under police pressure and threats. However, the trial court proceeded to convict him summarily and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 200. The appellant appealed to the High Court. The High Court examined the procedure under Section 344 CrPC and found that the trial court had not strictly complied with the procedural requirements. Specifically, the court did not give the appellant a proper opportunity to cross-examine witnesses or lead evidence in his defense. The High Court held that the summary trial was vitiated due to non-compliance with the safeguards under Section 344 CrPC. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Perjury - Summary Trial under Section 344 CrPC - Procedural Safeguards - The court held that before taking cognizance of the offence of perjury under Section 344 CrPC, the court must record a finding that it is expedient in the interests of justice to try the witness summarily, and must give the witness an opportunity of being heard. In the present case, the trial court failed to provide the appellant with a proper opportunity to cross-examine witnesses or lead evidence, and the conviction was set aside. (Paras 2-3) B) Criminal Procedure - Perjury - Section 344 CrPC - Opportunity of Hearing - The court emphasized that Section 344 CrPC requires that the person accused of giving false evidence must be given a reasonable opportunity to show cause why he should not be punished. The appellant's written explanation was considered, but the court found that the trial court did not record evidence or allow the appellant to cross-examine witnesses, violating the principles of natural justice. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the summary trial and conviction of the appellant for perjury under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was valid when the appellant was not given a proper opportunity to defend himself and the procedure under Section 344 was not strictly followed.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted.
Law Points
- Section 344 CrPC
- summary trial for perjury
- procedural safeguards
- opportunity of hearing
- recording of evidence
- witness turning hostile
- false evidence
