It is not expedient in the interests of justice to prosecute a witness who has given contradictory statements under Section 164 CrPC and in a judicial proceeding, as it would encourage the witness to believe that it pays to tell a lie and stick to it.

( 1 ) IN P. S. C. No. 10 of 1961, there was an enquiry by the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Alur against the sole accused, B. Parameswarappa for an offence under Section 302 I. P. C. In that enquiry the prosecution examined two witnesses namely, Boya Arjunappa and Chinna Thimmappa of Molagavalli; those two persons denied ail knowledge of the occurrence and the commission of the offence. But, each of them had given a statement earlier under Section 164 Cr. P. C. namely, Ex. P. 1 by Arjunappa and Ex. P. 2 by Thimmappa before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Adoni, to the effect that he had seen the commission of the offence by the accused A. P. P. I filed a petition before the J. S. C. M. Alur under Section 479-A Crl. P. C. requesting the Court to order prosecution of the two witnesses for perjury in the final order disposing of the case. The learned Magistrate passed an order dated 16-1-1962 discharging the accused on the ground that there is no evidence against him. In that order, the learned Magistrate also mentioned as follows: -"there is no doubt from their own Admissions in their evidence that they have given false statements under Section 164 Cr. P. C. before the J. S. C. M. (Adoni) on oath and that they have spoken the truth in this Court quite contrary to it. But the suggestion of the learned A. P. P. I to the witnesses is that they had spoken the truth before the J. S. C. M. Adoni and falsehood before this Court and the suggestion is denied. Whichever statement is true or whichever is false, it is clear that P. Ws. 1 and 2 had given false statements on oath either before the J. S. C. M. Adoni or before this Court. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prima facie it is clear that the two witnessed had intentionally given two statements on oath one before the J. S. C. M. Adoni and another before this Court and the one given before this Court is evidently false with the knowledge that it was false in the absence of any circumstances and natural conduct exhibited by the accused to show that the first statement was vitiated by torture, coercion and undue influence. I, therefore, hold that the two witnesses P. Ws. 1 and 2 had given Intentionally false evidence before this Court on oath, and that for the eradication of the evils of perjury and fabrication of false evidence and in the interests of justice it is expedient that the two witnesses P. Ws. 1 and 2 shall be prosecuted for the offence under Section 193 I. P. C. which appears to have been committed by them after giving them an opportunity to appear and show cause, why they should not be prosecuted. "

( 2 ) ACCORDINGLY, the learned Magistrate gave an opportunity to the witnesses to appear before him on 31-1-1962. The two witnesses appeared before the learned Magistrate and made a statement giving the explanation that on account of torture and threats by the Police, they had given the earlier statements under Section 164 Cr. P. C. (Ex. p. 1 and Ex. P. 2) before the J. S. C, M. Adoni falsely. After considering the said explanation, the J. S. C. M. Alur passed an order dated 31-1-1962 that a complaint be filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adoni for an offence under Section 193 I. P. C.

( 3 ) IN pursuance of that order dated 31-1-1962, a complaint was filed by the J. S. C. M. Alur against the two witnesses before the J. F. C. M. Adoni for the said offence under Section 193 I. P. C. In that complaint, it is mentioned as follows: -"thus in the capital case of murder, the accused intentionally gave two statements on oath which were diametrically contradictory to each other in relevant facts and perjured either before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Adoni or before this Court (J. S. C. M. Alur) or in both the judicial proceedings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The accused has therefore given false evidence intentionally and knowing that it was false before this Court on oath on 12-1-1962 in P. R. C. No. 10/61 during the Judicial enquiry