Acquitted the respondent under Sections 325, 333 and 353 of IPC and High Court remain same that Judjment
(Ranjeet Singh Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) 1 Cr.R. No. 869/2010
28/10/2014
Shri V.D. Sharma and Shri Dharmendra Rishishwar,
Advocates for the petitioner.
Smt. Sangeeta Pachauri, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
Heard.
This revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of
Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order
dated 16.09.2010 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind
in Sessions Trial No. 173/2010, by which the learned Additional
Sessions Judge has acquitted the respondent No. 2 under
Sections 325, 333 and 353 of IPC and directed to institute a
criminal complaint under Section 193 of IPC before the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Bhind, against the petitioner/complainant.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on the basis of a
Rojnamcha No. 327 dated 13.02.2009, Crime No. 85/2009 under
Section 325, 353 and 332 of IPC was registered at Police Station
Barohi district Bhind on the ground that when the police party
(including the petitioner Ranjeet Singh, Constable No. 744) were
checking the vehicles, accused Ripudaman Singh came in
Motorcycle No. HR26-K-9823. When his vehicle was being
checked, he became aggressive and attacked the petitioner-
Constable No. 744 Ranjeet Singh and hit on his face, due to
which blood came out. Injured Ranjeet Singh was sent for
(Ranjeet Singh Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) 2 Cr.R. No. 869/2010
medical examination to district hospital. A teeth was broken. The
broken teeth was seized. Subsequently, FIR was lodged and
charge-sheet was filed under Section 325, 353 and 332 of IPC
against Ripudaman Singh respondent No. 2. During the course of
evidence, the petitioner Ranjeet Singh was examined as PW-6 on
16.09.2010. He did not support the prosecution story and even
he refused to identify the accused. He was declared hostile. For
these reasons, accused respondent No. 2 Ripudaman Singh has
been acquitted by the impugned judgment.
However, the learned Trial Court has held that the
petitioner Ranjeet Singh has been prima facie guilty of giving
false evidence. Therefore, he was given a notice to explain his
position which he refused to answer. The learned Trial Court
then ordered to file a complaint before Chief Judicial Magistrate
under Section 193 of IPC against the complainant/petitioner.
Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has preferred this
revision challenging the same on the ground that the order is not
good in the eyes of law. The finding of the learned Trial Court is
erroneous. The conclusion arrived by the learned Trial Court is
based on surmise. The early statement under Section 161 of
Cr.P.C. cannot be taken to be a statement recorded in the Court.
Therefore, denial of the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.
cannot be treated as false evidence. The FIR is not signed by the
petitioner. The petitioner also suffered injuries. Therefore, he
(Ranjeet Singh Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) 3 Cr.R. No. 869/2010
could not identify the accused. It is also urged that the statement
given by the petitioner in the Court by any means is not perjury.
Therefore, the order of instituting a criminal complaint against
the petitioner is liable to be set aside.
Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently
opposed the same and submitted that the petitioner has given
false evidence because of which the respondent No. 2 was
benefited and the case resulted into an acquittal. Hence, order of
the Trial Court is correct and in accordance with law.
Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on B.K.
Gupta Vs. Damodar H. Bajaj and others reported in 2002
SCC (Cri) 1103, in which it is opined that:-
“There are two conditions on fulfilment of
which a complaint can be filed against a person
who has given a false affidavit or evidence in a
proceeding before a court. Firstly, that a person
has given a false affidavit in a proceeding before
the court and secondly, in the opinion of the court
it si expedient in the interest of justice to make an
enquiry against such a person in relation to the
offence committed by him.”
Reliance has also been placed by the learned counsel for
the petitioner on Santokh Singh Vs. Izhar Hussain and
another reported in 1973 SCC (Cri) 828, in which the Hon'ble
Allahabad High Court has held that:-
“Every incorrect or false statement does not
make it incumbent on the court to order
(Ranjeet Singh Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) 4 Cr.R. No. 869/2010
prosecution. The court has to exercise judicial
discretion in the light of all the relevant
circumstances when it determines the question of
expediency. The power to make an order of
complaint can be exercised either by the court
which tried the original offence or a court to which
the trial court was subordinate. The court of the
Additional District Magistrate is not a court
subordinate to the High Court as provided by
Section 195(3), Cr.P.C.”
The learned counsel for the petitioner has given a detailed
of the narration of the petition and quoted T. Bhagi Patra Vs.
State of Orissa reported in 1996 Cri.L.J. 2423, in which it has
been held that:-
“Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974), S. 344, 154 –
Prosecution for giving false evidence – Based on
lodging of FIR – Impermissible – FIR not being
statement on oath in Court, does not attract S.
344.”
Having gone through the record of the Trial Court, it is
found that the complainant/petitioner was injured. He had been
examined by the Medical Officer and Ex. P-2 report was
submitted on the same day. His police statement as Ex. P-1
recorded on 23.09.2009. The spot map Ex. P-6 was prepared, in
which the petitioner has signed as a witness. Learned Trial Court
on the basis of the statement of the complainant/petitioner
acquitted the accused/respondent No. 2. But the Court held that
the petitioner/complainant was served with a notice regarding
(Ranjeet Singh Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) 5 Cr.R. No. 869/2010
giving false evidence, which the complainant/petitioner did not
wanted to reply. The petitioner has actually given a false
statement or not is a matter of evidence but at this juncture
prima facie the learned Trial Court found it an appropriate case
for lodging a complaint. Learned Trial Court proceeded under
Section 340 of Cr.P.C. by recording a finding to the effect that
there has been a case of false evidence against the
complainant/petitioner and therefore, drafted a complaint and
sent the same to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for necessary
action. This is also the requirement of Section 195 of Cr.P.C. In
the case of T. Bhagi Patra (supra), prosecution was launched for
giving false evidence on the basis of FIR. Therefore, the Hon'ble
High Court of Orissa observed that it is impermissible.
So far as case of Santokh Singh (supra) is concerned, the
observation made by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court is very
clear and unambiguous. True every incorrect or false statement
does not make it incumbent on the Court to order prosecution.
And exercising judicial discretion in the light of all the relevant
circumstances, in the present case, the order of the learned Trial
Court cannot be said to be improper.
So far as the other citation relied by the learned counsel
for the petitioner that two requirements for filing a complaint for
false evidence in a proceeding before the court are: (1) false
evidence (2) in the opinion of the Court, it is expedient in the
(Ranjeet Singh Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) 6 Cr.R. No. 869/2010
interest of justice to make an enquiry for such offence
committed.
Keeping in view the fact that in the opinion of the Trial
Court, the petitioner has made a false statement on oath and
having the knowledge that the accused could be benefited by this
evidence, for the petitioner is a police constable, the learned
Trial Court has ordered to file a criminal complaint under
Section 193 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, that the two conditions are
fulfilled for filing a complaint.
The complainant/petitioner's statement before the Trial
Court cannot be termed as “some inaccuracy” which may be
innocent or inadvertent or immaterial. But it seems prima facie
case of deliberate falsehood. Therefore, there is reasonable
foundation for the charge of perjury and prosecution of the
offender is necessary in the interest of justice.
In this light of the above, it is found that there is no
illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment. Hence, this
revision is devoid of substance and is hereby dismissed.
(S.K. Palo)
Judge
Abhi*
No comments:
Post a Comment