KURIAKOSE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Kuriakose was examined as a prosecution witness in a Sessions trial. Learned Sessions Judge proceeded against him under S.340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') on the premise that he had committed the offence punishable under S.193 of the Indian Penal Code alleging that he gave false evidence. He was examined as P.W. 14 being an attestor in Ext. P 17 mahazar which was prepared in respect of the recovery of a knife effected by a Circle Inspector of Police. In the course of evidence, P.W. 14 stated that he did not know about the contents of the mahazar (Ext. P17) and that he did not witness the recovery of knife from the house of the accused. (Of course, placing reliance on the evidence of the investigating officer, recovery of M.O.2 weapon was accepted by the Sessions Court and the case against the accused ended in conviction).

(2.) Learned Sessions Judge criticised P.W. 14 in his judgment and qualified him as a person "who is prepared to mortgage his conscience to any extent to oblige a person in authority or for his own aggrandisement". Learned Judge also remarked that "from the manner in which this witness was giving evidence before court, I am convinced that he has been stating utter falsehood before Court by denying having witnessed the recovery of the knife". Para.32 of the judgment further reads as follows:

(3.) A notice under S.33 of the Criminal Rules of Practice was issued to P.W.14. On receipt of the notice, he filed an explanation before the Court. He also reminded the Court that there was no guarantee that the recitals in Ext. P17 mahazar were true and the truth or falsity of his statement on Oath might not be judged on the basis of the recitals in Ext. P17. But, learned Sessions Judge was not satisfied with the explanation and so he decided to proceed against P.W.14. An order was, therefore, passed by the learned Sessions Judge to proceed with the enquiry and so a decision was taken to lodge a complaint with the local Chief Judicial Magistrate. Pursuant to the decision, a complaint under S.190(1)(a) read with S.195(1)(b)(ii) and 340 of the Code was made by the Sessions Judge. The challenge in this appeal is against the aforesaid proceedings initiated by the learned Sessions Judge.