DWARKA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Halakram and three others were tried on charge of murder and allied offences in Sessions Trial No. 8/81 by Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni, who while acquitting the accused vide judgment dated- 30-3-1981 considered an application filed by the Govt. Advocate u/ S. 344 Criminal P.C. and directed appellants' prosecution for purjury on the ground that their exclupatory evidence during the trial being contradictory to their incriminating statements recorded u/S. 164 Cr. P.C. they had given false evidence either in the, trial or before the magistrate who recorded their statement u/S. 164, Criminal P.C. Accordingly, they were summarily tried u / S. 344, Criminal P.C. in, Misc. Criminal Case No. 3 / 85 and on conviction sentenced to 3 months R.I. each which is under challenge in this appeal.

(2.) The impugned finding is assailed on the ground that u/ S. 344, Criminal P.C. the judge was obliged to have come to a finding that the evidence given before him was false and that the same was given deliberately and intentionally by the appellants. Reliance was placed on the following placitum of Pydi Lakshmanna v. Duppala Krishnamurthy AIR 1969 AP 415: (1969 Cri LJ 1476) Para 2:

(3.) The judge was further obliged to have come to the conclusion that for the eradication of the evils of perjury and in the interest of justice, it was expedient that the witness should be prosecuted for the offence which appeared to have been committed by him. In support of this argument, Mohammad Ibrahim v. B. Rama Rao, AIR 1976 SC 1822: (1976 Cri LJ 1385), was cited wherein it has been held at page 1386 (of Cri LJ):