P DEVENDRA RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is convicted under Section 193 IPC and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three months.

(2.) The proceedings were initiated suo motu by the Court of Session, west Godavari Division, Eluru, for intentionally giving, false evidence in judicial proceedings. In the course of investigation into the murder of Patcha Venkateswara Rao, the police got a statement of the appellant, recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr. P.C. The appellant gave not only the first information report as direct injured witness, narrating the entire occurrence impleading three accused but also made a detailed statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C. before the Munsif Magistrate, Eluru, describing in detail the occurrence and also stating that he saw three persons indiscriminately stabbing the deceased to death. The appellant was cited as PW-1 and examined in the Court of Session. But, in course of evidence in the Sessions Court, he resiled from the statement given under Section 164 and stated that he did not know anything about the alleged occurrence, that, at the time of occurrence, he was at his house in his village and that he only heard about the murder of the deceased. Regarding the first information report, he stated that the contents of the first information report are not true and that the police took his signature on a prepared statement. Regarding the injury on his person, he stated that the police people themselves made some scratches on bis body and sent him to the hospital and asked him to tell the doctor that he was stabbed by one of the accused. Regarding the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it is stated that it was false and that he made the said statement before the Magistrate under pressure of the police. Since the appellant herein is the sole direct witness, and as he turned hostile to the prosecution, the accused were acquitted of the charge under Section 302 IPC. The Sessions Court, while delivering the judgment in S.C. No. 45/83, found that it was necessary and expedient in the interests of justice that the appellant should be tried summarily for giving or fabricating false evidence. In the course of judgment, it was observed that the story of coercion and duress pleaded by PW-1, the appellant herein, for making Ex. P-3 statement, could not but be false. Pursuant to the show cause notice issued under Section 344 Cr.P.C. the appellant filed a statement stating that the police merely obtained his signature on a prepared F.I.R. and that a statement was made by him before the Magistrate under duress and coercion by the police. The learned Sessions Judge found that the explanation given by the appellant that he made Section 164 statement under coercion is not true and that he turned hostile, during the trial of the case, giving a go-bye to the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and as such he made a false statement in judicial proceedings.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the statement was given under pressure by the police, and in any event it is not expedient in the interests of justice to pursue the proceedings under Section 344 Cr.P.C., as the witness should not be compelled to adhere to the false statement given earlier.