MANIA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Mania had appeared as a prosecution witness in Sessions Case No. 9/82 before the learned AddI. Sessions Judge, Sirohi. During the examination he said to have resiled from a statement made by him under section 164 Cr. P.C. and, therefore, he was declared hostile. It is alleged that in the statement under section 164 Cr. P.C. he had stated that the deceased had been throttled by the accused but before the Court he denied throttling He, however, admitted having stated so before the police but explained that he had been detained by the police and it was on account of the pressure of the police that he had stated so, although it was not true. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned AddI. Sessions Judge also came to the conclusion that it was not a case of throttling and the medical evidence also did not support the prosecution story so far as the question of throttling was concerned. According to the opinion of the doctor the cause of death was drowning and not throttling. However, the learned AddI. Sessions Judge observed that as the petitioner has resiled from his previous statement and one of the two statements was bound to be false, it wa5 necessary to make an enquiry and file a complaint against the appellant for offence under section 193 I.P.C. In pursuance of that observation an enquiry was made. As the court of the AddI. Sessions judge had been up-graded into the court of the Sessions Judge, Sirohi, this enquiry was made by the learned Sessions Judge and he came to the conclusion that it was expedient and in the interest of justice to make a complaint against the petitioner. Accordingly, a complaint has been filed before the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi for offence under section 193 I.P.C. against the petitioner. The petitioner has come up in appeal against that filing of the complaint.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned P.P. and have also gone through the certified copies of the statements of the appellant under section 164 Cr. P.C. as also before the court and the statement of doctor.

(3.) It is true that the appellant Mania had stated before the police that the accused had throttled the deceased but he did not stick to this version of the story before the trial court and stated that he had made that statement under section 164 Cr. P.C. on account of the pressure of the police. It further appears that from the other material on record and specially the medical evidence the statement made by the appellant before the learned Sessions Judge that it was not a case of throttling and that he had not seen the accused throttling the deceased appears to be correct. The doctor has categorically stated that cause of death was drowning and not throttling. He has also stated that there was no congestion in larynx and treachea and in a case of throttling these parts are expected to be congested.