Back
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
Rajan, S/o. Chellappan Chettiar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
ORDER :
The deposition given by the petitioner in a case tried by the Sessions Court has landed him as an accused for the offence of perjury. Pursuant to the order of the Sessions Court finding grounds to proceed against the petitioner under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) a complaint has been forwarded to the Magistrate and registered as C.C. No.8 of 2006 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Kollam. Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the said proceedings.
2. In a notorious case referred to as 'Kalluvaathukkal liquor tragedy' petitioner was examined as PW71. The case was numbered as S.C. No.214 of 2001 before the 1st Additional Sessions Court, Kollam. When petitioner was examined in court, he deposed contrary to the statement given by him under section 164 Cr.P.C. and therefore he was declared hostile. While deposing in court, he stated that his earlier statement was under threat and coercion from the police.
Despite petitioner turning hostile to the persecution case, the main accused were convicted and their conviction was upheld all along including the Supreme Court thoug
Courts should be prima facie satisfied that the proceedings under section 340 Cr.P.C should be initiated for the interests of justice and that there must be prima facie evidence supporting a conclusi....
Section 195(1) of Cr.P.C. provides No Court shall take cognizance- (a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Prosecution for perjury in matrimonial disputes requires clear evidence of deliberate falsehood and must be deemed expedient in the interest of justice.
A court cannot initiate proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against a person for making a false statement in an affidavit if the person did not obtain any relief from the ....
The court's control over offences related to false evidence and public justice, and the necessity of a preliminary enquiry to determine the expediency of prosecution in the interest of justice.
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 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.
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
