Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1382 (MP)

Ranjit Singh v. State Of M. P.

2014-10-28

S.K.PALO

body2014
ORDER : Shri V. D. Sharma and Shri Dharmendra Rishishwar, Advocates for the petitioner. Smt. Sangeeta Pachauri, Public Prosecutor for the respondents/State. Heard. 2. This revision under section 397 read with section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 16-9-2010 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 Indian Penal Code and directed to institute a criminal complaint under section 193 of Indian Penal Code before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhind, against the petitioner/complainant. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on the basis of a Rojnamcha No. 327 dated 13-2-2009, Crime No. 85/2009 under sections 325, 353 and 332 of Indian Penal Code 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 on 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 medical examination to district hospital. A teeth was broken. The broken teeth was seized. Subsequently, FIR was lodged and charge-sheet was filed under sections 325, 353 and 332 of Indian Penal Code against Ripudaman Singh respondent No. 2. During the course of evidence, the petitioner Ranjeet Singh was examined as PW-6 on 16-9-2010. 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. 4. 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 Indian Penal Code against the complainant/petitioner. 5. 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. 5. 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 earlier statement under section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code cannot be taken to be a statement recorded in the Court. Therefore, denial of the statement under section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code cannot be treated as false evidence. The FIR is not signed by the petitioner. The petitioner also suffered injuries. Therefore, he 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. 6. 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. 7. 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 is expedient in the interest of justice to make an enquiry against such a person in relation to the offence committed by him." 8. 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 prosecution. The court has to exercise judicial discretion in the light of all the relevant circumstances when it determines the question of expediency. 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), Criminal Procedure Code." 9. 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), SS. 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." 10. 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 23-9-2009. 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 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 Criminal Procedure Code 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 Criminal Procedure Code. 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. 11. This is also the requirement of section 195 of Criminal Procedure Code. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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 interest of justice to make an enquiry for such offence committed. 13. 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 Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, that the two conditions are fulfilled for filing a complaint. 14. 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. 15. 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.