Facts of the Case
- The petitioner lodged a report against two persons at Police Station. She was waylaid by them who dragged her and committed rape on her, one after another.She claimed to have narrated the incident to her father and uncle and, thereafter lodged the report at the police station.
- On the basis of the report, matter was investigated. The accused persons were arrested. Charge-sheet was filed. The accused persons faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The accused persons abjured their guilt.
- During trial, the petitioner stated that she had actually not been raped. As she resiled from the statement made during investigation, she was permitted to be cross-examined by the prosecution. She even denied to have lodged the first information report and to have given any statement to the police.
- The Trial Court found that the 2 petitioner had tendered false evidence and had fabricated evidence against the accused persons with the intention that such evidence shall be used in the proceedings, and, therefore, directed cognizance in terms of Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to be taken against the petitioner.
- In view of the statement of the petitioner, the two accused persons were acquitted.
- A show-cause notice was issued and the case was registered against the petitioner who filed reply to the effect that being an illiterate lady, she had committed the mistake and may be excused. The Trial Court found that the petitioner admitted her guilt that she had lodged false report of rape against the accused. She was, accordingly, sentenced to undergo three months’ simple imprisonment.
- Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which, by the order, was dismissed.
- Special Leave Petition was filed before the Supreme Court.
Judgment
The Supreme Court Stated that , “ For exercising the powers the Court at the time of delivery of judgment or final order must at the first instance express an opinion to the effect that the witness before it has either intentionally given false evidence or fabricated such evidence. The second condition is that the Court must come to the conclusion that in the interests of justice the witness concerned should be punished summarily by it for the offence which appears to have been committed by the witness. And the third condition is that before commencing the summary trial for punishment the witness must be given reasonable opportunity of showing cause why he should not be so punished. All these conditions are mandatory. The evil of perjury has assumed alarming propositions in cases depending on oral evidence and in order to deal with the menace effectively it is desirable for the courts to use the provision more effectively and frequently than it is presently done. In the case at hand, the court has rightly taken action and we find nothing infirm in the order of the Trial Court and the High Court to warrant interference.”
The Special Leave Petition was dismissed.
BY: ANKIT RAJPUT