The main legal point established in the judgment is that the procedural requirements under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 must be strictly followed when charging witnesses with giving false evidence.

1. The Criminal Appeal No. 250/2003 arises out of Misc. Criminal Application No. 179/2002 and Criminal Appeal No.251/2003 arises out of Misc. Criminal Application No. 178/2002, against judgment of conviction and sentence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded on 24.3.2003. These are impugned judgments in these Appeals. The appellants in these two appeals were witnesses in Sessions Case No. 90/1996. Appellant Manoj Chavan was examined in the said Sessions Case as P.W.4 and the appellant Dr. Gokul Agrawal came to be examined as P.W.3. The Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded, before whom the Sessions Case was conducted, acquitted all the accused in that matter as it found that it was a case of "No Evidence". In the said Sessions Case, it appears that, almost all the witnesses turned hostile including those who were examined relating the actual incident. It appears that, the incident had occurred on 9.2.1996. One Rajkumar was working on Dhaba of one Madhav. The prosecution case was that, the accused persons as arrayed in the Sessions Case had reached the Dhaba in a TATA Sumo vehicle and in an altercation, due to obstruction by the owner of the Dhaba and the servants, knife blows were given, in which Rajkumar and one Kisan Ganpati were injured. Kisan died. Case of prosecution was that, accused were returning from a marriage and stopped at the Dhaba and due to altercation incident took place. At the time of trial, none of the witnesses appear to have supported the prosecution to the extent that even statement of accused was dispensed with. Persons who witnessed the incident and who informed police the vehicle number in which accused had reached Dhaba also did not support. The Additional Sessions Judge, in his judgment, dealt with the evidence of the present appellants in paras 7 and 8 of the judgment. The same is a short discussion and I will reproduce the same :

"7. In this case, one vehicle was seized. According to P.W.3 Gokul Agarwal, Tata Sumo make vehicle bearing No.MH-22-B/7639 was owned by him. The same was seized in investigation. According to him, he had not given the jeep anywhere, much less to Pradeep. On 10.2.1996, police had taken the jeep and the driver. He was cross-examined and contradicted with his statement to the effect that he had given jeep and his nephew had gone to attend the marriage. The complete evidence revealed that he wanted to suppress that the vehicle was taken from his house by someone. The number of that vehicle was reported to police station, and the same vehicle was seized in it. It thus appears that he has suppressed the fact of removal of his vehicle from his house on that day. He was further contradicted with his statement that some persons had taken his vehicle at Dhaba. The vehicle was got released by him, and therefore his denial that it was not given by him is a deliberate attempt to suppress the fact. In view therefore this is a statement made by him which he knows to be not correct and therefore in my view he has given false evidence.

8. The statement of witness recorded by police is not as such admissible in evidence, but for the purposes of contradiction or omission. P.W.4 Manoj Chavan said that his sister Manisha was married on 4.11.1998. He was contradicted with his statement that his sister was to be married on 9.2.1996 by name Manisha. He has denied to have made such a statement. It is a prosecution story that on 9.2.1996 accused persons were to go to Banegaon for marriage. He has changed the date. It therefore appears that he deposed so, so as to falsify the prosecution story that accused were to attend the marriage of Manisha. This also appears that statement is made intentionally so as to falsify the prosecution story. One does not know which one is false i.e. whether this piece of evidence of contradictory portion. In my opinion, therefore this also can be taken as a false evidence. I am therefore of the view that the p