Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Manikrao Shivram Wagh, was a trap panch witness in a corruption case (Special Case No.4/1999) against Samadhan Bhusari, who was tried for demanding Rs.500 from complainant Ganesh Deshmukh. The trap was laid on 24/04/1998 at the MHADA office in Akola. During the trial, the appellant gave evidence in chief consistent with the prosecution case that the money was demanded for release of allotment of a tenement. However, during cross-examination, he suggested that the amount might have been accepted for procurement of a water supply line, contradicting his earlier testimony. The Special Judge, finding this contradictory, initiated perjury proceedings against the appellant under Section 193 IPC and convicted him. The appellant appealed to the Bombay High Court. The High Court held that the appellant's conduct of giving inconsistent statements in chief and cross-examination amounted to perjury, as he had made a somersault and told one fact at one time and a totally inconsistent fact at another time. The court observed that such conduct undermines the justice delivery system and that the Special Judge was justified in taking action. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction for perjury was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Perjury - Contradictory Testimony - Section 193 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Trap panch witness gave inconsistent statements in chief and cross-examination regarding the purpose of bribe demand - Court held that such somersault by a witness amounts to perjury and the Special Judge was justified in initiating proceedings - Held that the witness's conduct of telling one fact at one time and totally inconsistent fact at another time constitutes an offence under Section 193 IPC (Paras 2-4, 10-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant, a trap panch witness, committed perjury by giving contradictory statements in his chief-examination and cross-examination in a corruption trial.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The conviction of the appellant for perjury under Section 193 IPC is upheld.
Law Points
- Perjury
- Contradictory testimony
- Trap panch witness
- Section 193 IPC
- Section 195 CrPC
- Prevention of Corruption Act
