9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Malicious prosecution, false evidence, perjury, summary trial for perjury.
The judgment addresses the issue of maliciously setting the law into motion by lodging a false report of rape, leading to the arrest and trial of two individuals under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner, after initially claiming rape, later recanted her statement during trial, resulting in the acquittal of the accused. Subsequently, the Trial Court directed cognizance u/s 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the petitioner for fabricating evidence. The petitioner's appeal before the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging the conviction was dismissed, emphasizing her admission of guilt and the lack of merit in her defense of being illiterate and coerced. The High Court also considered the petitioner's plea for leniency in sentencing, which was partially accepted due to a factual error in custody duration mentioned before the court. The petitioner's argument of being pressurized by family members to file a false report contradicted her trial testimony denying any police complaint. The judgment highlights the importance of the victim's statement in sexual offense cases and the serious implications of false accusations leading to arrests and trials. It underscores the legislative intent behind Section 344 of the Cr.P.C. to combat perjury and fabrication of evidence, providing courts with additional tools to address such misconduct effectively. The new provision empowers designated courts to summarily try and punish offenders of perjury, ensuring a fair opportunity for the accused to defend themselves before sentencing. The Court elucidates the key features of the new provision u/s 344, emphasizing the special powers conferred on specific courts for summary trials of perjury offenses committed during proceedings. It mandates that the court must express a clear opinion on the intentional false evidence or fabrication by the witness, followed by a decision on summary punishment in the interest of justice. The judgment stresses the mandatory nature of providing the accused with a reasonable opportunity to present their defense before commencing the summary trial, aligning with the principles of natural justice. The judgment concludes by affirming the Trial Court and High Court's orders in the case, finding no grounds for interference. It underscores the necessity for courts to effectively utilize provisions like Section 344 to combat the rising menace of perjury, especially in cases relying on oral evidence. Ultimately, the special leave petitions are dismissed, upholding the actions taken against the petitioner for lodging a false report and fabricating evidence, in line with the objectives of the legal provisions governing perjury.
|
