Back
DEEPAK KUMAR TIWARI
D. R. Thakur S/o. Late Shri Johan Thakur – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, through District Magistrate, Kabirdham, C. G. – Respondent
ORDER :
1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed against the order dated 07.10.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kabirdham passed in Criminal Revision No.30/2013 upholding the order, of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kabirdham passed in Criminal Case No.509/2012 (State of Chattisgarh Vs. Shivsahay) passed on 04.09.2013, whereby learned Magistrate while acquitting the accused Shiv Sahay from offence under Section 411 IPC simultaneously took cognizance against the present petitioner, who was the prosecution witness No.2 in that case and directed to initiate criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 344 IPC for giving false evidence.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, is that the petitioner is a Government servant working as Executive Magistrate cum Tahsildar at Pandariya, District Kabirdham. While performing his duties, petitioner prepared identification memo on 23.08.2012 of the seized property i.e. iron rods in respect of Criminal Case No.509/2012, whereby the accused in that case namely Shiv Sahay was charged for the offence under Section 411 IPC for purchasing 75 KG stolen iron rods. The said iro
The court ruled that mere inconsistencies in testimony do not constitute perjury under Section 344 Cr.P.C. unless there is evidence of wilful intent to give false evidence.
The need for consistency in the application of legal provisions and the requirement to follow the appropriate procedure as contemplated under Sec. 195(1)(b)(i) of IPC and to decide whether to proceed....
The court emphasized the necessity of following established procedures in trials for perjury, ruling that failure to do so results in an unfair conviction.
The duty of the court to ensure fair trials and the quest for truth in criminal proceedings.
For prosecution under Section 193 IPC, a deliberate falsehood in significant matters must be established, not mere contradictions or inaccuracies.
The main legal point established is the discretion of the Court of Session or Magistrate of the first class to try offenders summarily under Section 344 Cr.P.C., and the provision for staying further....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
