Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed Criminal Appeal No. 73/2014 against the acquittal of seven respondents (original accused Nos. 2, 6, 7, 8, 12, 14, and 16) in a murder case. The incident allegedly occurred on 19.06.2002 at about 11:00 a.m. in the corridor of the 6th floor of the District Court, when PW 22 Deepak Trivedi, along with Police Constable Deepak Deshbhratar and gunman Karaskar, had brought the deceased with other accused persons from Central Jail for production before the Court. The prosecution examined PW 22 as an eye witness. However, during the trial, PW 22 resiled from his previous statement recorded on the same day of the incident. While hearing a group of criminal appeals, the High Court prima facie found that PW 22 had committed perjury within the meaning of Section 191 read with Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. Consequently, the Court issued notice to PW 22 to show cause why he should not be prosecuted for perjury. The Court dismissed the State's appeal against acquittal, as the sole eye witness had resiled and committed perjury, rendering the prosecution case unreliable.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Perjury - Sections 191, 193 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Witness resiling from previous statement - The Court found that PW 22 Deepak Trivedi, an eye witness, resiled from his earlier statement recorded on the same day of the incident, thereby committing perjury within the meaning of Section 191 read with Section 193 IPC. The Court issued notice to him to show cause why he should not be prosecuted for perjury. (Paras 1-3)
B) Criminal Appeal - Acquittal - Appeal against acquittal - The State appealed against the acquittal of the respondents. However, the Court dismissed the appeal as the sole eye witness had resiled and committed perjury, making the prosecution case unreliable. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appeal against acquittal is maintainable when the sole eye witness has resiled from his previous statement and committed perjury.
Final Decision
The Court dismissed the appeal against acquittal and issued notice to PW 22 Deepak Trivedi to show cause why he should not be prosecuted for perjury under Section 191 read with Section 193 IPC.
Law Points
- Perjury
- Section 191 IPC
- Section 193 IPC
- Resiling witness
- Acquittal upheld
- Appeal dismissed
Case Details
2020 LawText (BOM) (05) 28
Criminal Appeal No. 73/2014
N.W. Sambre, N.B. Suryawanshi
Shri V.P. Maldure (APP for appellant/State), Shri S.D. Chopde (Advocate for PW 22), Shri D.V. Chavhan and Shri R.M. Daga (Amicus Curiae)
State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Sadar, Nagpur
Mangesh S/O Shivajirao Chavan (original accused No. 2), Mayur @ Banti S/O Shivajirao Chavan (original accused No. 6), Pandurang S/O Motiramji Injewar (original accused No. 7), Rajesh S/O Dayaramji Kadoo (original accused No. 8), Mahesh S/O Damodhar Bante (original accused No. 12), Sandip S/O Nilkanthrao Sanas (original accused No. 14), Maroti @ Navya S/O Santoshrao Walake (original accused No. 16)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against acquittal in a murder case
Remedy Sought
State sought conviction of the respondents for murder
Filing Reason
The trial court acquitted the respondents; the State appealed against the acquittal
Previous Decisions
Trial court acquitted the respondents
Issues
Whether the appeal against acquittal is maintainable when the sole eye witness has resiled from his previous statement and committed perjury.
Submissions/Arguments
State argued that the acquittal was erroneous and that the evidence of PW 22 should be believed.
Respondents argued that the witness resiled and committed perjury, making the prosecution case unreliable.
Ratio Decidendi
A witness who resiles from a previous statement made on the same day of the incident commits perjury under Section 191 read with Section 193 IPC, and such conduct renders the prosecution case unreliable, warranting dismissal of the appeal against acquittal.
Judgment Excerpts
While hearing group of criminal appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal Nos. 569/2013, 561/2013, 564/2013, 570/2013, 573/2013, 55/2014, 56/2014 and 73/2014, this Court prima-facie was of the view that PW 22 Deepak Trivedi has committed perjury within the meaning of Section 191 read with Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code.
PW 22 – Deepak Trivedi, whose statements were recorded on the same day of incident i.e. on 19.06.2002, however, resiled
Procedural History
The trial court acquitted the respondents. The State filed Criminal Appeal No. 73/2014 before the High Court. While hearing a group of appeals, the High Court prima facie found that PW 22 committed perjury and issued notice to him. The Court then dismissed the appeal.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 191, 193
