NASIB DIN Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was tried, convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days for having wilfully given false evidence (perjury) in a judicial proceedings in Sessions Trial No.7-NL/7 of 1990.

(2.) Essential facts giving rise to the petition are that Shri Nasib Din, petitioner, was cited as a prosecution witness in the aforesaid Sessions Trial; Re: State v. Jagga, under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, but was given up by the prosecution on the ground as to having been won over by the accused: On the contrary, he appeared as a witness on behalf of the accused as D.W.-l. The learned AddI. Sessions Judge while pronouncing the judgment expressed an opinion to the effect that the petitioner had intentionally given false evidence. Notice under Section 344 Cr.P.C. was given to him to appear on 15-5-1991 to state as to why he should not be punished for perjury.

(3.) On the date so fixed the petitioner appeared in the Court and filed his written reply to the said notice. His statement was also recorded. In his reply, the petitioner stated that he was an illiterate person and appeared in the Court for the first time. He also stated that he did not give evidence with the intention to mis-lead the Court but on the contrary deposed the facts as per his knowledge thereof. According to him, he was nut aware if he was cited as a prosecution witness as the investigating agency never recorded his statement during the investigation of the aforesaid case against Jagga accused for the commission of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He further apprised the Court that as per his information through the wife of the accused, an appeal had been filed by the latter against his conviction in the High Court.