Allahabad High Court
Veerpal vs State Of U.P. on 21 May, 2013
Bench: Anil Kumar Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 43
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 374 CR.P.C. No. - 2224 of 2013
Appellant :- Veerpal
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Ashutosh Gupta,Smt. Arti Gupta,Smt. Vandana Gupta
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Anil Kumar Sharma,J.
This appeal challenges the order dated 20.04.2013 passed by R. A. Kaushik, Sessions Judge, Mathura in Criminal Misc. Case No. 79 of 2012, State vs. Veerpal, under section 344 Cr.P.C. police station Sadar Bazar, District Mathura, whereby the appellant has been found guilty for giving false evidence in S.T. No. 20/2012, State vs. Kishan Pal @ Kishan Lal, under section 302 IPC, P.S. Mant, Mathura and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one month.
Facts germane to the instant appeal are that appellant submitted a written report regarding murder of his wife against his son Kishan Pal @ Kishan Lal by voluntarily causing her death with fire arm on 05.08.2011, on the basis whereof case crime no. 91/2011 was registered. The investigation culminated in charge sheet against accused Kishan Pal @ Kishan Lal. After committal of the case during trial the prosecution examined the appellant as PW-1 and four other witnesses of fact. It was mentioned in the written report of the appellant that his cousins Bankey Lal PW-2 and Jawala PW-3 have told him that shot was fired from country made pistol of Kishan Lal. The appellant and other witnesses of fact did not support the prosecution story and they were declared hostile by the prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 27.07.2012 acquitting accused Kishan Pal @ Kishan Lal has observed that appellant being the complainant of the case has fabricated evidence or given false evidence in the case in order to seek acquittal of his son. It was further directed that proceeding under section 344 Cr.P.C. be initiated against the appellant. Consequently, notice under section 344 Cr.P.C. was issued against the appellant and in reply he contended that on 05.08.2011 in his absence his wife died and on getting information he returned back home. He lodged the report as stated to him by the villagers because on account of death of his wife his mental condition was not good. He further stated that after inquiring into the facts of the incident he had deposed true facts before the court. He neither fabricated false evidence nor falsely deposed before the court. Accused Kishan Pal @ Kishan Lal is his elder son so naturally he would not fabricate false evidence against him. Since he was mentally disturbed so on the basis of the information conveyed to him he lodged the report and prayed for termination of the proceedings against him.
Learned trial Judge after hearing the parties counsel through impugned order held that the appellant has given false evidence or fabricated false evidence so he is liable to be convicted under section 344 Cr.P.C., accordingly, sentence of one month was imposed on him. Aggrieved the appellant has come up in appeal.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State as also the impugned order passed by learned trial court.
It is not disputed that appellant lodged a written report with the police regarding death of his wife by fire arm injury and after investigation accused Kishan Pal @ Kishan Lal was charge sheeted and tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Mathura in S.T. No. 20 of 2012. The appellant is not the eye witness of the incident as he has mentioned in his report that he has been told about the incident by his cousins Jawala and Bankey. These two persons were examined by the prosecution but on oath they denied to have stated anything to the complainant regarding incident. The appellant has stated in his reply that at the time of incident his son Kishan Pal @ Kishan Lal had gone for work and he noted his name in the report due to emotions at the instance of witnesses. The appellant did not support the prosecution story is quite obvious because the sole accused facing trial was none other than his own elder son.
The learned trial court has placed reliance on the case of Mahila Vinod Kumari vs. State of M.P. (Criminal Misc. Petition No. 8515-8516 of 2008) decided by the Apex Court on 11.07.2008. In this case the Supreme Court has confirmed the conviction of victim of gang rape under section 344 Cr.P.C. who later on resiled to have been subjected to gang rape during trial.
Section 344 Cr.P.C. inter alia provides that at the time of delivery of any judgment the 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.
In the instant case the learned Sessions Judge while delivering the judgment in S.T. No. 20 of 2012 has observed that the appellant has given false evidence or fabricated false evidence so he should be tried summarily under section 344 Cr.P.C. and thereafter show cause notice was given to him. The appellant filed his reply and after considering the contention of the appellant and hearing the counsel the impugned judgment has been delivered.
The object of the legislature underlying enactment of the provisions of section 344 Cr.P.C. is to eradicate the evil of perjury and fabrication of evidence, which is rising to a great extent, therefore, the courts are required to deal with such unscrupulous persons with firm hand and the provisions should be more effectively and frequently used. However, in the instant case we find that the appellant was not an eye witness of the incident and has lodged the report on the basis of the information conveyed to him by his cousins. In these circumstances the sentence of one month imprisonment appears to be excessive. The interest of justice would be met if the appellant is sentenced to imprisonment of one week and is directed to pay fine of Rs. 200/-.
In view of above discussion, the appeal partly succeeds. The appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment is modified to the extent that instead of one month imprisonment the appellant is sentenced to imprisonment for a week and to pay fine of Rs. 200/-. In default he would further undergo imprisonment for three days. The appellant is directed to surrender before the Sessions Judge, Mathura within 15 days from today.
Office is directed to transmit the copy of this order to the court concerned positively within three days.
Order Date :- 21.5.2013
Imroz
