Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1143 (MP)

Sanjay Sharma v. State of M. P.

2014-09-12

B.D.RATHI

body2014
JUDGMENT B.D. Rathi, J. 1. This revision petition has been preferred under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. seeking the following reliefs:- "By allowing this revision, the impugned order dated 6/7/2012 passed in MJC No. 34/11 from the court of Sessions Judge, Shivpuri (M.P.) whereby the petitioners' application under section 340 of Cr.P.C. as well as sections 194 and 195 of I.P.C. came to be rejected, be quashed." 2. It is the submission of the counsel for the petitioners that during the course of hearing on the application preferred under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. to bail out the petitioners, one false and fabricated document, i.e., a letter purported to be signed by the Superintendent of Police of District Shivpuri, namely, Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh was filed by the respondents with an ulterior motive to get rejection order of bail application filed under section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. before the police and on that basis an objection was raised by the Investigating Officer that offence under section 467 of I.P.C. has been registered and limitation prescribed to file charge-sheet was still there. On having being raised this objection deliberately and mischievously to misguide the court, the bail application of the petitioners was dismissed and because of that petitioners were put to suffer irreparable loss. It is submitted by the counsel that thereafter in the aforesaid crime, SST No. 1/09 was conducted and after that judgment of acquittal was passed on 10/5/11 from the court of Special Judge, Shivpuri. In paras 42 and 43 of the said judgment, it was held by the court that aforesaid letter of S.P. Sanjay Kumar Singh was false and fabricated one but even then no action had been taken against the respondents No. 2 to 4 under Section 194 and 195 of I.P.C. because it was not proved that by whom such letter was prepared. Application preferred under section 340 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed. Hence, it is prayed that appropriate directions be issued against the respondent No. 2 to 5, by setting aside the aforesaid order dated 6/7/2012 passed in MJC No. 34/11. 3. Vehemently opposing the prayer made above, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that no case is made out for granting relief to the petitioners. Hence, it is prayed that appropriate directions be issued against the respondent No. 2 to 5, by setting aside the aforesaid order dated 6/7/2012 passed in MJC No. 34/11. 3. Vehemently opposing the prayer made above, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that no case is made out for granting relief to the petitioners. It is submitted that in the aforesaid judgment of acquittal, nowhere it was observed by the court that false and fabricated document was produced with an intent to cause injury to the petitioners. Therefore, it is prayed that the petition be dismissed being devoid of substance. 4. Having regard to the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, entire case has been examined. 5. Before the matter is examined on the anvil of the arguments aforesaid, it will be appropriate to examine the provisions of Sections 194, 195 of I.P.C. as also Section 340 of Cr.P.C. "Section 194. Giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of capital offence Whoever gives or fabricates false evidence, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, any person to be convicted of an offence which is capital [by the law for the time being in force in [India] shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; if innocent person be thereby convicted and executed-and if an innocent person be convicted and executed in consequence of such false evidence, the person who gives such false evidence shall be punished either with death or the punishment herein before described. Section 195. Giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of offence punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment Whoever gives or fabricates false evidence intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, any person to be convicted of an offence which [by the law for the time being in force in [India] is not capital, but punishable with [imprisonment for life], or imprisonment for a term of seven years or upwards, shall be punished as a person convicted of that offence would be liable to be punished. 6. 6. The provisions of sections 194 and 195 of I.P.C. on perusal make it evident that the same deal with offences affecting the administration of justice by giving false evidence intending thereby to cause someone to be convicted of the offence and such person is therefore, is liable to [imprisonment for life] or imprisonment, with or without fine for offences relating to documents given in evidence. 7. Now, this court shall advert to look into the definition of evidence. The dictionary meaning of the word 'evidence' is that which makes evident : means of proving an unknown or disputed fact : information in a law case. In common parlance, a matter of fact furnished in any legal proceedings is evidence. So far as the term judicial evidence is concerned, there is no difficulty because it means the evidence received by the Court of Justice for the purpose of proving or disproving a fact. This court, therefore, shall try to understand the meaning of the term 'evidence' from the definition of the word given in Section 3 of the Evidence Act which is applicable to legal proceedings. 8. The definition of the term 'evidence' in Section 3 of the Evidence Act is as under : -- "Evidence" means and includes: (1) all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses in relation to matters to fact under inquiry; such statements are called oral evidence: (2) all documents produced for the inspection of the Court : such documents are called documentary evidence. 9. On perusal of provisions mentioned as above, it is clear that when any kind of statement given before the court or any document when produced in the court, same should be considered as an evidence produced in the court. 10. Here in this case admittedly so called false or fabricated document was not produced during the trial before the trial court. Same was given during investigation before the I.O., therefore, it does not come within the definition of the term 'evidence' as per Section 3 of the Evidence Act. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix, no offence is made out under sections 194 and 195 of I.P.C. 11. Same was given during investigation before the I.O., therefore, it does not come within the definition of the term 'evidence' as per Section 3 of the Evidence Act. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix, no offence is made out under sections 194 and 195 of I.P.C. 11. Apart that, it was also mentioned in the aforesaid judgment that there is no evidence adduced on record to ascertain as to by whom the said letter, purported to be signed by S.P., was written. In such circumstances, in the opinion of this court, dismissal of the application filed under section 340 of Cr.P.C. by the impugned order, cannot be said to be illegal or perverse. 12. There is no force in the petition. Consequently, it fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.