9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal against order for prosecution under Section 476 of CrPC for giving false evidence under Section 193 IPC. Analysis: 1. The case involves an appeal against an order directing the prosecution of the applicants for giving false evidence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, pursuant to Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The critical issue raised is the necessity for the court to determine the expediency of prosecution in the interest of justice. 2. The applicants initially made a statement under Section 164 of the CrPC alleging witnessing a murder, but later retracted their statements during the inquiry before the committing Magistrate. The court deliberated on the significance of Section 164 statements, emphasizing the importance of distinguishing between true and false statements made under oath before a Magistrate. 3. The judgment referred to precedents regarding contradictory statements made under Section 164 and in court, highlighting the possibility of framing charges of perjury alternatively. The court discussed the authority of full bench decisions and the implications of overruling prior judgments by a larger bench, emphasizing the need for consistency and clarity in legal interpretations. 4. The court emphasized the need to ascertain which statement, the one under Section 164 or the subsequent one in court, was false before deciding on the expediency of prosecution. The judgment underscored the potential risks of encouraging false statements by prosecuting individuals who retract false statements made under Section 164, thereby prioritizing justice over mere technicalities. 5. Referring to a previous judgment by Sir Lawrence Jenkins, the court reiterated the importance of assessing the truthfulness of statements and the circumstances surrounding contradictory statements. The judgment concluded that without clear evidence indicating which statement was false, it would not be expedient in the interest of justice to sanction prosecution. 6. Ultimately, the court allowed the appeal, concurring that prosecution should not be pursued in the absence of conclusive evidence regarding the falsity of the statements. The judgment highlighted the need to maintain the integrity of legal processes and prioritize the pursuit of justice over procedural formalities.
|
