MyNation KnowledgeBase

Landmark Judgments and Articles on Law

Register to Download

Punishment for false evidence u/s.193 IPC

In the Court of Manjeet Pal,
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rohtak.

Criminal Complaint No. 31 of 2011/2014.
Date of Institution: 30.3.2011/6.3.2014.
Date of Decision: 10.09.2015.

Sh. Ashu Kumar Jain, the then JMIC, Rohtak through applicant Karan Singh son of Maman Singh, resident of Baliyana, Sampla.….Complainant
Versus
Naresh Kumar son of Samar Singh, resident of village Baliana, District Rohtak.….Accused

Complaint under Section 193 of IPC

Present: Sh. Sudhir Jakhar, APP for the State assisted by Sh. Tejbir Kundu, Advocate.
Accused on bail with Sh. Surender Verma, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

The present complaint was moved by Sh. Ashu Kumar Jain, the then Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rohtak on motion of application moved by Karan Singh, complainant on the grounds that on 12.2.2009, accused Naresh Kumar son of Samar Singh had appeared as DW-1 in case FIR No.309 dated 20.10.1998 under Section 324/326 of IPC, Police Station Sampla titled as ‘State Versus Prem Singh’ before the Court of Ms. Payal Mittal, the then learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rohtak and had deposed on oath in his cross-examination that he was the present Sarpanch of the village due to which he had come to give evidence. Thereafter, the accused had self-sated that his wife was the Sarpanch and he looks after her work, whereas the Gram Sachiv of village Baliyana while appearing before the Court as CW-1 has duly testified that as on 12.2.2009 neither accused Naresh Ku mar nor his wife were the Sarpanch of the village Baliyana and rather one Smt. Upasana Devi wife of Rajesh had been elected as Sarpanch in the year 2005 and was working as such till date. The said witness had also produced a copy of notification issued by the State Election Commission, Haryana vide which it has been clearly mentioned that Smt. Upasana Devi had been declared as Sarpanch of the village Baliyana. Thus, accused Naresh Kumar had given false evidence on oath knowingly or having reason to believe the same to be false and not believing the same to be true.

2. On finding a prima-facie case against the accused under Section 193 of IPC, accused Naresh was summoned vide order dated 3.5.2011. Accused Naresh had put in appearance and got himself released on bail vide order dated 13.8.2012.

3. The accused was charge-sheeted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 193 of IPC vide order dated 2.8.2014, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. In after charge evidence, Sapna Rani, Gram Sachiv appeared as CW-1 and Karan Singh as CW-2. CW-1 Sapna Devi deposed that she has brought the summoned record. She further deposed that she has been Gram Sachiv in Block since 2007. She has been Gram Sachiv of village Baliyana since 2008. When she was appointed as Gram Sachiv of village Baliyana, at that time, Smt. Upasana Devi was the Sarpanch of that village and she remained as Sarpanch since the year 2010. During that period, Smt. Upasana Devi never suspended. She deposed that B.D.O Sampla is present in the court. She exhibited copy of proceedings book of panchayat duly attested by BDPO Naresh Chhikara as Ex.PW-1/A and attested copy of notification as Ex.PW-1/B.

5. CW-2 Karan Singh deposed that he got lodged an FIR against Prem on 20.10.1998. In that case titled State Vs. Prem, accused Naresh examined one witness namely Naresh son of Samar Singh in his defence. Naresh deposed that he is Sarpanch of the village. His evidence was proved false. In this regard, he moved an application in the Court of Sh. Ashu Kumar Jain and case against Naresh was got registered.

6. Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr. P. C. was recorded in which he denied all the allegations levelled against him and stated that the witnesses of the complainant are deposing falsely.

7. In defence evidence, Jaipal son of Hari Singh appeared as DW-1 who deposed that Balwant Singh, grandfather of Naresh son of Samar Singh, remained Sarpanch of the village and his son Yoganand also remained Sarpanch of the village for two plans. Upasana Devi, who is wife of brother of Naresh, also remained Sarpanch. At present, she is M.C. He deposed that in the villages, the family members of Sarpanch have also been called Sarpanch and family members of Numberdar have also been called Numberdar. He deposed that Naresh gets decided the social matters and got decided many disputes. He has made brotherhood in the village.

8. DW-2 Sispal son of Risal Singh deposed that Balwant Singh, grandfather of Naresh son of Samar Singh, remained Sarpanch of the village and his son Yoganand also remained Sarpanch of the village for two plans. Upasana Devi, who is wife of brother of Naresh, also remained Sarpanch. At present, she is M.C. He deposed that in the villages, the family members of Sarpanch have also been called Sarpanch and family members of Numberdar have also been called Numberdar. He deposed that Naresh gets decided the social matters and got decided many disputes. He has made brotherhood in the village.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence adduced on record minutely and carefully.

10. Learned APP assisted by Sh. Tejbir Kundu, Advocate has argued that the complainant has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Naresh was not the Sarpanch of the village at the time when he gave his evidence in the court stating that he is Sarpanch of the village. The complainant has examined each and every witness to prove this. The accused deliberately and intentionally gave false statement in the court to give benefit to the accused persons in that case. So, a prayer has been made to convict the accused.

11. On the other hand, learned counsel on behalf of the accused has argued that at that time, when the accused gave his evidence, the wife of his brother was the Sarpanch of village. He had been working on behalf of wife of his brother. No benefit was taken by the accused by giving false evidence. In village, everyone calls him Sarpanch as the grandfather of accused had remained Sarpanch and his grandson has also remained Sarpanch of the village for two times. Accused Naresh is having active role for the welfare of the village. The learned counsel further argued that the complaint was forwarded by Sh. Ashu Kumar Jain, the then learned Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak but he has not appeared to give his evidence. He has also relied upon Ram Niwas Sharma Versus State of Haryana 2003(3) RCR (Criminal) 166 (P&H), Ashok Kumar Versus Sharda Kadan and others 2012(2) RCR (Criminal) 592 (P&H), B.K. Gupta Versus Damodar H. Bajaj and others 2002 S.C.C. (Criminal) 1103, Badan Singh and another Versus Sh. R.K. Sondhi, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hisar and another and Onkar Chand Versus State (UT of Chandigarh) and others 2008(4) RCR (Criminal) 265 (P&H).

12. The complainant has examined Sat Narain, Gram Sachiv, Sampla Block who has deposed that according to their record, Upasana Devi wife of Rajesh was the Sarpanch from year 2008 to 2010. Upasana Devi was never suspended during this spell. The second witness is Karan Singh, who has deposed that accused Naresh in a case State Versus Prem gave his deposition on the pretext that he is Sarpanch of the village. He was not the Sarpanch and he gave a false statement after taking oath.

13. The complainant has also produced copy of resolution passed by Gram Panchayat exhibited as PW-1/A which shows that on 5.4.2010, Upasana Devi was Sarpanch of the village. The complainant has also placed upon file notification issued by State Election Commission wherein Upasana wife of Rajesh has been shown Sarpanch of village Baliyana. Even otherwise, the accused has produced two witnesses in his evidence. Both the witnesses have deposed that the grandfather of accused Naresh remained the Sarpanch of village Baliyana and grandson of accused was also remained Sarpanch of village Baliyana. But none of them has averred that accused Naresh was also remained Sarpanch of village Baliyana. Hence, it can be held that accused Naresh never remained Sarpanch of village Baliyana and he has deposed falsely that he was the Sarpanch of his village at the time when he gave his evidence.

14. At the time of arguments, it has been argued by learned defence counsel that the present complaint was forwarded by Sh. Ashu Kumar Jain, the then Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rohtak. But he has not appeared in the witness-box to give his evidence. Perusal of complaint shows that Sh. Ashu Kumar Jain has requested to exempt his personal appearance in the complaint and on 3.5.2011, the then JMIC exempted the personal appearance with the observation that “keeping in view the fact that the complainant is a public servant and also nature of the his duties, the personal appearance of the complainant is hereby exempted.” So, if the then learned JMIC has not appeared in the witness-box, it is not a lacuna as he was already exempted. Even otherwise, the name of the then learned JMIC, Rohtak has not been mentioned in the list of witnesses.

15. At the time of arguments, learned defence counsel has relied upon some authorities. But this Court is of the view that the facts of these authorities are different from the facts of the present case. Hence, these authorities cannot be relied upon. The learned counsel has relied upon Onkar Singh Versus State (supra) wherein Hon’ble High Court has held that “court should not file complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C. in every case.” In this case, the petitioner had sought quashing of the complaint. This Court is of the view that this Court has no power to quash the proceedings. This power lies with the Hon’ble High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Hence, this authority has no applicability on the present case.

16. The other authority which has been relied upon by learned defence counsel is Ram Niwas Sharma Versus State of Haryana (supra). In this case, it was observed by Hon’ble High Court that “it is not in dispute that affidavit dated 14.6.1995 Ex.PA has not been filed in any judicial proceedings for which he could be charged under Section 193 IPC for giving false evidence in a judicial proceedings. In this view of the matter, the formal complaint under Section 195(1) (b) Cr.P.C. was not liable to be filed as that provides that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 193 to 196 IPC except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. Therefore, filing of complaint in terms of Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. was not warranted.” Hence, the facts of this authority are different from the present case.

17. The another authority which has been relied upon the defence counsel is Badan Singh & anr. versus Sh. R.K. Sondhi (supra), wherein the Hon’ble High Court quashed the complaint because no prior enquiry held to find out that evidence was false and lodging of the complaint was expedient in the interest of justice. Hence, the facts of this authority are also different from the facts of present case.

18. Hence, from every angle, this Court is satisfied that the complainant has succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused and as such accused Naresh Kumar is hereby guilty for the commission of offence punishable under section 193 of IPC. Now, to come up after some time for arguments on the quantum of sentence.

Pronounced in open Court: (Manjeet Pal)
Dated: 10.9.2015. Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,Rohtak.

ORDER ON QUANTUM OF SENTENCE

Present: Sh. Sudhir Jakhar, APP for the State assisted by Sh. Tejbir Kundu, Advocate.
Accused on bail with Sh. Surender Verma, Advocate.
This order of mine forms part of my judgment of even date.

I have heard learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the convict on quantum of sentence. Statement of convict on the quantum of sentence recorded. Convict stated that he has old mother and three children. Except him, there is no other bread earner in his family. He prayed for a lenient view. Learned defence counsel has argued that the convict has taken no benefit by giving false evidence in the court. He had been supervising the work of Sarpanch in his village on behalf of the wife of his brother, so, he deposed that he is Sarpanch of the village. Learned defence counsel prayed that lenient view be taken against the convict and he be released on probation.

2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant alongwith learned APP argued that the convict gave false statement in the court after taking oath to speak truth. On that day, when he stated that he was Sarpanch of the village, he was not the Sarpanch of the village. He never remained Sarpanch of the village. They have argued that some deterrent punishment be awarded to the convict so that such type of occurrence is not repeated in future.

3. After hearing the rival contentions of both the parties and giving due deliberations to the contentions of both the parties, this court is of the considered view that in the present case, the accused does not deserve to be released on probation of good conduct and his request for releasing on probation is declined. In case FIR No.309 titled as State Vs. Prem Singh, the convict appeared in the witness-box on 12.9.2002 and he had given his evidence favouring the accused person. He had deposed that accused was a true and honest person. He had been falsely implicated in the case. Neither such dispute took place nor accused injured the complainant. He had specifically stated that he was present Sarpanch. He was Sarpanch of the village and in this capacity, he has appeared in the witness-box for giving his evidence. After that, he self stated that his wife was the Sarpanch and he worked on her behalf. But it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that neither he nor his wife ever remained Sarpanch in the village. So, he intentionally gave false evidence. Hence, in view of the totality of the circumstances, I sentence the convict to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- for the commission of offence punishable under Section 193 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ten days. Fine paid. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Pronounced in open Court: (Manjeet Pal)

Dated: 10.09.2015. Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,Rohtak.
Note: All the ten pages of this judgment/order have been checked and signed by me.
(Manjeet Pal)
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,
Rohtak. 10.09.2015.

Present: Sh. Sudhir Jakhar, APP for the State assisted by Sh. Tejbir Kundu, Advocate.
Accused on bail with Sh. Surender Verma, Advocate.

Arguments heard. Vide my separate judgment of even date, accused has been held guilty and convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 193 of IPC. Now, to come up after some time for arguments on quantum of sentence.

(Manjeet Pal)

Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,
Rohtak. 10.09.2015.

Present: Sh. Sudhir Jakhar, APP for the State assisted by Sh. Tejbir Kundu, Advocate.
Convict in custody represented by Sh. Surender Verma,Advocate.

Arguments on the quantum of sentence heard. Vide my separate order of even date, convict has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay of fine of Rs.1000/- for the commission of offence punishable under Section 193 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ten days. Fine paid. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Pronounced in open Court: (Manjeet Pal)
Dated: 10.09.2015. Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,
Rohtak.

Present: Sh. Sudhir Jakhar, APP for the State assisted by Sh. Tejbir Kundu, Advocate.
Convict in custody represented by Sh. Surender Verma,Advocate.

At this stage, an application for bail till filing of appeal has been moved by the convict. Heard. Since, the convict intends to prefer appeal against his conviction and sentence, he is directed to be released on bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with one surety in the like amount for enabling him to file appeal. Requisite bonds furnished, accepted and attested. The convict is directed to surrender in the Court on 10.10.2015 if he fails to obtain bail from appellate court or to file appeal.

(Manjeet Pal)
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,
Rohtak. 10.09.2015.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Important SC/HC Judgements on 498A IPC
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2018 MyNation KnowledgeBase
eXTReMe Tracker
×

Free Legal Help just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please CLICK HERE to read Group Rules, If You agree then JOIN HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DVACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA24, 125 CrPc, 307, 313, 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509 etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh