Case Note & Summary
The appellant was a panch witness in a corruption case tried by the Special Judge, Akola. The original case involved allegations that a Junior Engineer demanded illegal gratification of Rs.500 for release of a tenement. The appellant initially testified that the demand was for possession of the tenement, but during cross-examination suggested the payment could have been for laying a water pipeline. The Special Judge acquitted the accused and, taking a serious view of the appellant's contradictory statements, initiated summary proceedings under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The appellant was given an opportunity to explain, but his explanation was rejected, and he was convicted and sentenced to one month simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.200. On appeal to the High Court, two main issues arose: whether the procedure under Section 344 was properly followed, and whether the appellant's testimony actually constituted false evidence. The High Court examined the requirements of Section 344, noting that the court must form an opinion that false evidence was given willfully and that summary trial is necessary; it must also afford a reasonable opportunity to show cause. It distinguished between the summary procedure under Section 344 and the more detailed procedure under Section 340. Regarding the substantive offence, the court discussed the ingredients of false evidence under Section 191 of the Indian Penal Code, emphasizing that mere inconsistency does not automatically establish deliberate falsehood. The appellant's chief-examination and cross-examination answers were closely scrutinized. The High Court noted that the appellant had spoken from observation in chief, and in cross expressed a possibility; the subsequent admission that the earlier statement was false could be problematic, but the judgment text did not contain the final decision. The appeal remained undecided in the available extract, with the court's analysis incomplete. Consequently, the final outcome of the appeal is not mentioned.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Summary Procedure for Perjury - Section 344, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The Court must be satisfied that the witness has given false evidence willfully and with intention of using it in the proceeding, and that it is expedient in the interest of justice to try summarily; a reasonable opportunity to show cause must be given before sentencing. (Paras 8-10)
B) Criminal Law - False Evidence - Section 191, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - False evidence requires a statement made with knowledge or belief that it is false; mere contradictions in testimony may not amount to false evidence unless there is deliberate falsehood and not just error or honest difference in recollection. (Paras 13, 15-16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Special Judge followed the procedure laid down under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Whether the appellant's testimony constituted giving false evidence within the meaning of Section 191 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Law Points
- Section 344 CrPC requires court to form opinion that witness knowingly gave false evidence and summary trial is expedient
- distinction between Section 340 and Section 344 CrPC
- ingredients of false evidence under Section 191 IPC
- mere inconsistency in testimony may not amount to false evidence without intent
- opportunity to show cause before sentencing
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (02) 119
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.699 OF 2006
Rohit Vaidya h/f Anand Parchure for Appellant, M.J. Khan, A.P.P. for Respondent/State
Manikrao s/o Shivram Wagh
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction and sentence for giving false evidence under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought to set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judge, Akola.
Filing Reason
The Special Judge convicted the appellant for making contradictory statements on oath during trial, treating it as false evidence.
Previous Decisions
Special Judge, Akola in Special Case No.4/1999 acquitted the accused and summarily convicted the appellant under Section 344 CrPC on 20/06/2005, sentencing him to one month simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.200, with 15 days simple imprisonment in default.
Issues
Whether the Special Judge followed the procedure laid down under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Whether the act of the appellant really falls under the ambit of 'giving false evidence' as defined under Section 191 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant contended that he only expressed a possibility during cross-examination and had no intention to give false evidence; his earlier statement in chief was based on what he observed, and the later answer was not a deliberate false statement.
The State argued that the appellant made contradictory statements on oath, changing his version from demand for possession to demand for water pipeline, which amounted to giving false evidence, and that the Special Judge correctly invoked Section 344 CrPC.
Ratio Decidendi
For invoking Section 344 CrPC, the court must form an opinion that the witness knowingly gave false evidence with intention to use it in the proceeding and that summary trial is expedient in the interest of justice; a reasonable opportunity to show cause must be given before sentencing. Mere contradictions in testimony may not constitute false evidence under Section 191 IPC unless there is deliberate falsehood and not mere error or honest difference in recollection. (Paras 8-10, 13, 15-16)
Judgment Excerpts
Broadly, there are two remedies available when a person commits perjury. One is under Section 340 and another is under 344 of Cr.P.C.
...the witness had given false evidence, he gave it willfully/knowingly, he gave it with intention of using it in such proceeding, Court forms an opinion about giving of false evidence by such witness, it is necessary and expedient in the interest of justice to try the witness summarily.
My today's statement is correct. It is true that my earlier statement that the amount was demanded for possession is false.
Procedural History
The appellant was a panch witness in Special Case No.4/1999 before the Special Judge, Akola, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The accused Samadhan Bhusari was tried for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act. After the prosecution evidence, the Special Judge acquitted the accused on 20/06/2005. Observing contradictory statements by the appellant during chief-examination and cross-examination, the Special Judge suo motu initiated proceedings under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The appellant was called upon to show cause, and his explanation was rejected. He was convicted and sentenced to one month simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.200, with default imprisonment. The appellant appealed to the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, in Criminal Appeal No.699 of 2006.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 344, Section 340, Section 195
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 191, Section 193
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Section 7, Section 13(1)(d)
