GANGADHAR PARIDA AND Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioners in both these Revisions have been convicted under Section 193, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ - in default to undergo R.I. for one week. As the facts in both these petitions are identical in nature and originally arose out of one trial, both these petitions were heard together and shall be disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) ONE Bauri Swain of Dengapada alleged that four persons, viz., Kaibalya Naik, Sudarsan Goudo, Gobinda Goudo and Mohadev Malha committed house trespass and theft of certain articles from his house on 30 -5 -1960 and on his lodging the first information the police charge -sheeted the aforesaid four persons under Sections 457/380 and started G.R. Case No. 174 1 of 1960. In course of investigation the police got recorded the statements of the present Petitioners under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure on 3 -6 -1960 by a Magistrate, where they stated that the four accused in the above G.R. case removed certain articles from the house of the complainant Bauri Swain. At the time of trial, they however resiled from this statement and contended that they were strangers to the village and they had. stated in the 164 statements was based on the information gathered from the villagers who had assembled there in connection with a Jatra. The learned Magistrate who tried the G.R. case acquitted the four accused persons on 24 -3 -1962 but directed a complaint to be lodged under Section 211, Indian Penal Code against the informant Bauri Swain. He also gave a finding that, the present Petitioners Gangadhar Parida and Khadala Jena who were p.ws. 3 and 2 respectively in the G.R. case had perjured themselves by giving false evidence and directed under Section 479, Code of Criminal Procedure to start prosecution against them for offence under Section 193, Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate filed the complaint on 3 -l -1952 stating that these two Petitioners had, in their statements under Section 164, made false statements against the accused persons in the aforesaid G.R. case.

(3.) AS the prosecution was not sure as to which of the statements of the Petitioners was correct, the Court framed an alternative charge against the Petitioners and in support of its case examined four witnesses, viz., the Magistrate who recorded the statement under Section 164, the court peon who administered the oath and the Bench clerk who identified the accused deposing as witnesses and the I.O. obviously to prove that the Petitioners were sent up by him for recording their statements under Section 164.