Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jugraj Singh vs State Of Punjab on 6 February, 2014
Author: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
Bench: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
Criminal Misc. No.M-43952 of 2013 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No.M-43952 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of Decision: February 06, 2014
Jugraj Singh .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab .......Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA
Present:
Present Mr.RK Saini, Advocate for
Mr.Jatinder Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
<><><>
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.
The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking the quashing of order dated 5.4.2012 at Annexure P1 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ferozepur to the extent that directions have been issued for notice to be issued to the petitioner as also another under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to show cause as to why they be not punished for giving false evidence in the Court. Further challenge is to the notice under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure dated 1.10.2013 at Annexure P4 that has been issued in pursuance to the impugned order dated 5.4.2012, Annexure P1.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard at Malik Sushama Rani 2014.02.10 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No.M-43952 of 2013 (O&M) 2 length and the case paper book has been perused.
3. A perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the petitioner, namely Jugraj Singh son of Karam Singh had appeared as a prosecution witness and had, later on, resiled from his earlier statement made by him in the complaint before the Court of the jurisdictional Magistrate and as a consequence thereupon, accused Natha Singh, Jagsir Singh, Bohar Singh and Jaj Singh had been acquitted of the charges framed against them for offences under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act. In the impugned order, it has further been noticed that during cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor, the petitioner/complainant had stated that he had filed the complaint before the Magistrate and he had seen such statement on the Court file and it bears his signatures. Petitioner had further stated that he had made a statement before the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur on 15.3.2008 which also bears his signatures. Petitioner had even volunteered that he had made the complaint at the instance of the people of the village because of party faction. Same reason was assigned as regards making statement in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class.
4. Learned counsel has not been able to rebut the afore- noticed factual position as has been noticed by the Sessions Judge, Ferozepur in the impugned order dated 5.4.2012. The impugned order, as such, does not suffer from any perversity.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahila Vinod Kumari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 8 SCC 34 while examining the Malik Sushama Rani 2014.02.10 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No.M-43952 of 2013 (O&M) 3 exercise of power under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had observed as under:
"For exercising the powers under Section 344 of the Code, the Court at the time of delivery of judgment or final order must at the first instance express an opinion to the effect that the witness before it has either intentionally given false evidence or fabricated such evidence. The second condition is that the Court must come to the conclusion that in the interests of justice the witness concerned should be punished summarily by it for the offence which appears to have been committed by the witness. And the third condition is that before commencing the summary trial for punishment the witness must be given reasonable opportunity of showing cause why he should not be so punished. All these conditions are mandatory. The object of the provision is to deal with the evil of perjury in a summary way. "
6. A Division Bench of this Court in Surinder Singh v. State of Haryana, 2009(4) RCR (Criminal) 421 made the following observations:
"We are pained to see that the trial Courts willingly or unwillingly are not taking action against hostile witnesses. A number of witnesses who should be deposing as per their statements given under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and should be supporting the prosecution turn hostile. The Malik Sushama Rani 2014.02.10 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No.M-43952 of 2013 (O&M) 4 trial Courts cannot be mute spectators to the statement of these witnesses, when the witnesses are intentionally giving false evidence (a statement to help the accused). Action should be taken under the relevant provisions of law against such witnesses, so that the administration of criminal justice does not suffer."
7. I am of the considered view that the Sessions Judge, Ferozepur in the light of order dated 5.4.2012 has rightfully initiated proceedings against the petitioner under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure while forming an opinion that he has knowingly and wilfully given false evidence with the intention that such evidence would be used in the criminal proceedings. There is no patent infirmity in such order and as such, there would be no scope for interference in the same.
8. The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
( TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA )
February 06, 2014 JUDGE
SRM
Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter? (Yes/No)
Malik Sushama Rani
2014.02.10 15:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document