A court cannot direct a complaint for giving false evidence without recording a finding that the witness intentionally gave false evidence and without giving the witness an opportunity to be heard.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - S. 479A - COMPLAINT FOR GIVING FALSE EVIDENCE - CONDITIONS TO BE COMPLIED WITH - FINDING OF INTENTIONAL FALSE EVIDENCE AND HEARING OF WITNESS ESSENTIAL - ORDER DIRECTING COMPLAINT WITHOUT COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS - ILLEGAL.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, a medical doctor, was called as a defense witness in a criminal case involving the offense of rape. He testified that the alleged victim did not show any signs of rape. The prosecution called another doctor who testified that the victim had been raped. The High Court convicted the accused persons based on the prosecution's evidence and directed the issuance of a notice to the appellant to show cause why he should not be prosecuted for giving false evidence.
Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order directing the complaint against the appellant was illegal as it did not comply with the conditions laid down in Section 479A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court noted that the High Court failed to record a finding that the appellant had intentionally given false evidence and that it was expedient to proceed against him for the eradication of the evils of perjury and in the interests of justice. The court also found that the High Court did not give the appellant a proper hearing as required by the statute.
Issues: Whether the High Court's order directing the complaint against the appellant was legal.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order was illegal as it did not comply with the conditions laid down in Section 479A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court noted that the High Court failed to record a finding that the appellant had intentionally given false evidence and that it was expedient to proceed against him for the eradication of the evils of perjury and in the interests of justice. The court also found that the High Court did not give the appellant a proper hearing as required by the statute.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order directing the complaint against the appellant and allowed the appeal.

Judgment

SARKAR, J. : The appellant is a medical doctor and at the material time, he was the Civil Surgeon of Dibrugarh. He was a witness in a criminal case being G. P. Case No. 654/54 in which three persons were charged inter alia under S. 376 of the Indian Penal Code with the offence of rape. The case was tried with the aid of a jury and resulted in a verdict of acquittal in respect of that charge. There was an appeal to the High Court of Assam against the acquittal which was allowed and two of the accused persons were convicted.

2. The offence was said to have been committed on a minor girl named Roheswari Chetia sometime in the afternoon of 19-3-1954. The same day at 6 p. m., she was examined by Dr. Dhanbir Pait, the doctor in charge of Moran Dispensary, near which the offence was alleged to have been committed. It appears that the police produced her for another medical examination at the District town of Dibrugarh the next day and she was then examined by Dr. Mahibulla who was an assistant to the appellant, the Civil Surgeon. Thereafter, the police on 21-3-1954, produced the girl before the appellant for a further medical examination and she was examined by him on that date. With the reasons for these repeated medical examinations we are not concerned in this case.

3. Doctor Pait was called as prosecution witness at the hearing of the case while the appellant and Dr. Mahibulla were called by the accused as defence witnesses. Dr. Pait in his evidence was clear that the girl had been raped. He said that he found two circular teeth marks on her cheeks and a reddish circular mark on her left breast. He also said that he found the hymen ruptured and gave other details in support of his opinion that the girl had been ravished. In his opinion, the hymen appeared to have been ruptured the same day that he examined the girl. Dr. Mahibulla s evidence was that the hymen was ruptured but the rupture had taken place nine or ten days before the incident and was not a recent one. The appellant in his evidence stated that the marks on the cheeks of the girl appeared to be insect bite and that the hymen was not ruptured. He found no evidence of rape on her person. There was thus direct contradiction between the evidence of the doctor called by the prosecution and the doctors called by the defence, on the question of the rupture of the hymen.

4. As we have earlier stated, the High Court allowed the appeal against acquittal in the view that the commission of the offence of rape had been established by the evidence of the doctor called by the prosecution and other evidence led by it. It is not necessary to refer for the purposes of this appeal to the other evidence produced. The appeal to the High Court was heard by Sarjoo Prasad C. J. and Deka J. After allowing the appeal and convicting the two accused, these learned Judges on the same day, passed an order in the terms set out below, directing the issue of a notice to the appellant.

"31-7-1958. Issue notice on Dr. B. K. Pal Chaudhry (D. W. 2), Retired Civil Surgeon, Dibrugarh to show cause why he should not be prosecuted under S. 193 I. P. C. for giving false evidence in connection with G. P. Case No. 654/54, (Lakhimpur, Case No. 72 of 1955) - The State v. Mahendra Nath Barua and others."

5. The notice was thereafter duly issued and served on the appellant. Pursuant to the notice the appellant showed cause, but this time the matter was heard by Deka and Mehrotra JJ. These learned Judges came to the conclusion that it was a fit case in which a complaint should be made against the appellant for an offence punishable under S. 193 of the Indian Penal Code and directed the Registrar of the High Court to lodge the complaint in the Court of the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur. It is against this order directing the making of the complaint, that the present appeal was filed.

6. Sections 476 to 479A of the Code of Criminal Procedure deal with complaints to be made for the offence of giving false evidence a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document