Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

15. The provisions of section 344 have been enacted in the Code of Criminal Procedure to further arm the court with a weapon to deal with more flagrant cases and not to take away the weapon already in its possession and to eradicate the evil of perjury. For exercising the power under section 344 Cr.P.C., the court at the time of delivery of judgment or final order must at the first instance express the opinion to the effect that the witness before it has either intentionally given false evidence or fabricated evidence. The second condition 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. The third condition is that before commencing the summary trial for punishment, the witness must 6 of 11 be given reasonable opportunity of showing cause why she/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. In Mahila Vinod Kumar's case (Supra) , the Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that section 344 should be used effectively and frequently to stop the menace of perjury which has bearing on alarming rise. The trial court can not be mute spectator to the statement of these witnesses when the witnesses are intentionally giving false evidence. Action should be taken under the relevant provisions of law against such witnesses, so that the administration of criminal Justice does not suffer. Similar observations were made by our Hon'ble High Court in case titled as Krishan and others Vs. State of Haryana, 2005(2) RCR (Criminal) 109 wherein the law was set into motion on the registration of the FIR by PW-8 At the trial, this witness supported the case of" the prosecution. His cross examination was deferred and when cross-examined subsequently, he resiled from his statement oil the basis of which FIR Was registered."

8 of 11 be punished summarily by this court for the. offence which she appears/happened to have. committed. Therefore, it is directed that cognizance of offence in terms of section 344 Cr.P.C. be taken against her for the purpose of eradication of evil of . perjury as well as notice to PW -2 prosecutrix for showing cause as to why. she should not be punished is ordered to be issued. Separate proceedings in this regard are ordered to be initiated accordingly. Ahlmad is directed to place a copy of this judgment on the file concerned for initiating separate proceedings under section 344 Cr.P.C. After due compliance file be consigned to records."

Feeling aggrieved by such observations and issuance of notice under Section 344 Cr.P.C., the complainant has preferred the present revision petition, which is being opposed by the State counsel.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel, besides going through the record.

Section 344 Cr.P.C. deals with summary procedure for trial for giving false evidence. For ready reference, the same is reproduced below:-

"Summary procedure for trial for giving false evidence
1) If, at the time of delivery of any judgment or

9 of 11 final order disposing of any judicial proceeding, a Court of Session or Magistrate of the first class expresses an opinion to the effect that any witness appearing in such proceeding had knowingly or willfully given false evidence or had fabricated false evidence with the intention that such evidence should be used in such proceeding, it or he may, if satisfied that it is necessary and expedient in the interest of justice that the witness should be tried summarily for giving or fabricating, as the case may be, false evidence, take cognizance of the offence and may, after giving the offender a reasonable opportunity of showing cause why he should not be punished for such offence, try such offender summarily and sentence him to imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or to fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both." Here in the present case, though the complainant is not shown to have supported the case of prosecution, but while directing issuance of notice under Section 344 Cr.P.C. , the trial Court has not recorded any satisfaction that it is necessary and expedient in the interest of justice that the witness should be tried summarily for giving or fabricating, false evidence. Unless, it was so done, notice under Section 344 Cr.P.C. could not have possibly being issued to the complainant. Merely resiling from earlier statement, does not call for 10 of 11 action being taken under Section 344 Cr.P.C.