Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt. Deepak vs State Of Haryana on 6 August, 2013
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
Crl. Appeal No. 1729-SB of 2013 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Appeal No. 1729-SB of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision: 06.08.2013
Smt. Deepak
...Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MS JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr. Harish Bhardwaj, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. C.S. Bakshi, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
RITU BAHRI, J.
This appeal is against the order dated 23.04.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court, Sonepat, whereby Deepak-appellant has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 10 days and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- upon notice under Section 344 Cr.P.C.
Brief facts of the case are that an FIR No.203 dated 03.10.2012, under Section 376 (2) (g) and 365 IPC, was registered on a written complaint made by the prosecutrix-appellant to the police with the allegations that four accused namely Sarwan, Anil son of Rattan Singh, Sanjay son of Dharampal and Anil son of Surender, took her in the fields and committed rape upon her.
During the course off trial, the prosecutrix-appellant had Prasher Ajay 2013.08.24 13:49 I attest to the accuracy and appeared as PW-2 and resiled from her statement. She was declared integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No. 1729-SB of 2013 (O&M) 2 hostile. In her cross-examination, she admitted her signatures over the the complaint, which was made to the police. She also admitted that she had made a statement (Ex.P5) before the Sub divisional Juicial Magistrate, Gohana, under Section 164 Cr.P.C., but stated that the same had been made by her under the pressure of the police and the same was not voluntary. Smt. Santosh, mother of the prosecutrix (PW-
3), Satyawan (PW-4) and Karma, father of the complainant (PW-5) did not support the prosecution version.
Ultimately, vide judgment dated 01.04.2013, passed by the trial Court, all the accused were acquitted by giving them benefit of doubt. However, while referring the judgments delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases Zahira Habibulla Sheikh (I) Vs. State of Gujarat, 2004 (4) SCC 148 and Mahila Vinod Kumari Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 8 SCC 34 and the judgments passed by this Court in Krishan and others Vs. State of Haryana, 2005 (2) RCR (Criminal) 109 and, a notice under Section 344 Cr.P.C. was served upon the prosecutrix-appellant with the allegations that she had knowingly and willingly given false evidence wile appearing as a prosecution witness in the aforesaid case. She appeared before the Court and prayed for showing leniency in the matter. As such, she was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 10 days and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-.
Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that even though the procedure of a summary trial had been followed, yet since the appellant did not admit her guilt straightway, the order of conviction could not be passed.
Prasher Ajay2013.08.24 13:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
This question has been dealth with by a Division Bench of Crl. Appeal No. 1729-SB of 2013 (O&M) 3 this Court in case Surinder Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2009 (4) RCR (Criminal) 421, wherein while referring to the judgment delivered in Mahila Vinod Kumar's case (supra), it was observed that the first condition, required to be fulfilled before awarding punishment under Section 344 IPC, is that at the time of delivery of final judgment, the Court should express an opinion that the witness before it has either intentionally given false evidence fabricated such evidence.
After going through the impugned order, this condition has been fulfilled, as in the judgment of acquittal dated 01.04.2013, it has been noticed that the prosecutrix had signed the complaint, which was given to the police and had made a statement to the same effect before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C., however, while appearing as PW-2, she resiled rom her statement and was declared hostile.
After referring various judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, an opinion has been formed that she is guity of perjury.
The second condition, required before imposing penalty under Section 344 IPC, is that the Court must come to the conclusion that in the interest of justice the witness concerned should be punished summarily by it for the offence which appears to have been committed by the witness.
This condition has also been fulfilled, as the trial Court has observed that the prosecutrix while appearing as PW-2 has stated that the initial statement given by her under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, was under the pressure of the police officials. However, Sh. K.P.Singh, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal Prasher Ajay 2013.08.24 13:49 I attest to the accuracy and (PW-9), deposed that the prosecutrix had not made any complaint that integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No. 1729-SB of 2013 (O&M) 4 any pressure was being exerted upon her from any of the police officials. Prosecutrix (PW-2) had given a false evidence intentionally and the opinion of the Court was to punish her summarily by issuing a notice under Sectioin 344 IPC.
The third condition for imposing penalty under Section 344 IPC is that before commencing the summary trial for punishment, the witness must be given reasonable opportunity to show, as to why he/she many not be so punished.
In response to the show cause notice under Section 344 IPC, the prosecutrix-appellant put in appearance and stated that she did not file any appeal or revision against the jugment dated 01.04.2013 and prayed for leniency in the matter. As such, a reasonable opportunity was given to the appellant.
In these circumstances, it is apparent that the procedure had been carried out correctly and all the mandatory conditions have been followed. The order of sentence is modified and reduced to Rs.5000/- as fine.
Crl. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
(RITU BAHRI) 06.08.2013 JUDGE ajp Prasher Ajay 2013.08.24 13:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh