perjury
A Truthseeker
(Querist) 14 August 2009
This query is : Resolved
should the existing procedure of taking cognizance of perjury at dock only at the time of judgment be amended? it is there so as not to put the witness under constant fear.but if there is no immediate apprehension of punishment for perjury witnesses would not care Section-193 IPC. the present poor rate of conviction in the sessions courts inspite of high crime rate is due to this. still very few proceedings are started u/s 340 or 344 Cr.P.C.
Guest
(Expert) 15 August 2009
Bentham once said – “Witnesses are the eyes and ears of justice”.
The great philosopher has rightly emphasized on the importance of the witnesses in the trial. A witness turns hostile due to many reasons. It can either threat, promise or inducement for not supporting the prosecution case. The problem of witness turning hostile has been affecting our criminal justice system for a long period of time. “Best Bakery Case” & “Jessica Lal Murder Case” have been in news much due to the witnesses turning hostile in these cases. Section 344 of Cr.P.C. uses the words “after giving the offender a reasonable opportunity of showing cause”. It specifically points out the discretion of the court to follow a procedure if it thinks fit. The only limitation provided is that the procedure has to be “reasonable”. Even subsection (2) of Section 344 also uses the words nearly “as may be practicable” which goes to show that the legislature has conferred the court concerned proceedings against witness under section 344, Cr. P.C. for giving false evidence, to follow such reasonable procedure as it thinks fit and has the discretion to follow the summary procedure provided under the Cr.P.C. However the problem lies in the embargo put by clause (4) of s. 344. As per this clause a court trying a witness for giving or fabricating false evidence cannot proceed with the trial of such witness, where an appeal or revision has been preferred against the judgment or order in which an opinion was expressed against the witness for giving false evidence or fabricating false evidence. The ultimate result is that the witness virtually goes scot free as appeal and revision petitions take a very period of time to be decided. In my opinion, section 344 (4) Cr. P.C. should be amended to specifically provide that notwithstanding the filing of an appeal or revision against the judgement in which an opinion of giving or fabricating false evidence has been expressed, the trial for the offence of giving or fabricating false evidence, shall continue. But the sentence imposed in pursuance of such trial shall not be given effect to, till the disposal of the appeal or revision so preferred. Further the Courts also have to play a pro-active role during the trial especially at the time of recording of evidence. Though section 344 Cr.P.C. gives a power to prosecute a witness for giving or fabricating false evidence, but this provision is hardly resorted to by the courts. If a witness turns hostile he or she should be warned of the consequences of turning hostile. The court should satisfy itself as to whether the witness has been threatened by the accused or by someone on his behalf or whether he has been given some inducement for not deposing the truth before the court.
M. M. LOKHANDWALA ADVOCATE (09727000333)
