SUNDER SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, Sunder Singh, has been convicted for his having allegedly committed perjury by knowingly making contradictory and unreconciliable statements at two stages in courts and was accordingly sentenced to two months rigorous imprisonment. The appellant has preferred appeal against the impugned judgment of the trial court.

(2.) One Randhir Singh, while working as a clerk in the Heckney Carriage, Department of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, had allegedly committed an offence punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 5(1) (d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appellant was a member of the trap-party which was formed to trap the said Randhir Singh while accepting bribe as prior information had allegedly been received by the CBI. After the arrest of the said Randhir Singh, statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the Metropolitan Magistrate on 26th February, 1980. In his statement under Section 164, it was stated by the appellant:-

(3.) However, while appealing as a wilness on oath in the trial court, he changed his statement and stated that when he went in the queue where Ashok Kumar was standing he saw that something was given by him from the window to the clerk sitting there but he did not hear any conversation Between the lwo, nor could he definitely say as to what had been passed on by Ashok Kumar to the clerk silting at the counter. He further stated that he did not see with his own eyes as to what was done with the current \notes by Ashok Kumar. He also stated that he did not hear himself any conversation between Randhir Singh and Ashok Kumar. On his having made this statement, he was declared hostile and in his cross-examination he stated that his statement was recorded before the Magistrate, but he had not disclosed true facts as he was under pressure of CBI, but he thought that he should speak the truth before the trial court as in his view the Judge was in the place of God.