SUBA SINGH Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 476B, Criminal P.C., against a decision of the Additional Sessions Judge of Gaya to prosecute the three petitioners under Section 193, Indian Penal Code, in respect of contradictory statements made by them in course of a sessions trial held by him and previously in the course of the commitment proceedings.

(2.) The learned Judge below observed that mere perusal of the statements alleged to have been made by the petitioners in the two Courts was sufficient to show that false statements had been made, and he declined to allow any locus poenitenti? apparently because of the interval between the depositions in the committing Court and those in the Court of Session. The depositions related to a case of rioting with an offence under Section 304, Indian Penal Code, and the learned Judge said that in cases of so grave a nature it wag clearly against the public interest that perjured statements should be allowed to be made with impunity.

(3.) It has been repeatedly pointed out how the fact that a witness appears to have made contradictory statements at two different stages of a case is not by itself always sufficient to justify his prosecution for per. jury. Not only do such contradictions frequently arise from such causes as mere carelessness or exaggeration due to the inability of ignorant witnesses to keep apart what they really saw from what they have since been hearing from others about the occurrence, but they may testify to the skill of the cross-examiner in inducing witnesses, notwithstanding previous stories to the contrary, to tell the truth at the sessions trial.