Definite proof lacking for the falsity of the statements.

In Preliminary Register Case No. 10 of 1961, there was an enquiry by the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Alur, against the sols accused B.Parameswarappa, for an offence under section 302, Penal Code. In that enquiry, the prosecution examined two witnesses, namely, Boya Arujunappa and Chinna Thimmappa of Molagavalli; those two persons denied all knowledge of the occurrence and the commission of the offence. But, each of them had given a statement earlier under section 164, Criminal Procedure Code, namely Exhibit P-1 by Arujunappa and Exhibit 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. Assistant Public Prosecutor (I) filed a petition before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Alur, under section 479-A, Criminal Procedure Code 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 16th January, 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, Criminal Procedure Code, before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate (Adoni) on oath and that they have spoken the truth in this Court quite contrary to it. But the suggestion of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor (I) to the witnesses is that they had spoken the truth before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Adoni, and falsehood before this Court and the suggestion is denied Which ever 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 Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Adoni or before this Court……

Prima facie it is clear that the two witnesses had intentionally given two statements on oath one be fore the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, 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.W.1 and ashall be prosecuted for the offence under section 193, Penal Code which appears to have been committed by them after giving them an opportunity to appear and show cause, why they should not beprosecuted.”

Accordingly, the learned Magistrate gave an opportunity to the witnesses toappear before him. On 31st January, 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, Criminal Procedure Code (Exhibits P-1 and P-2) before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Adoni falsely. After considering the said explanation, the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Alur, passed an order dated 31st January, 1962 that a complaint be filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adoni, for an offence under section 193, Penal Code.

In pursuance of that order dated 31st January, 1962, a complaint was filed by the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Alur, against the two witnesses before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adoni, for the said offence under section 133 Penal Code. In that complaint, it is mentioned as follows:

“Thus, in the capital case of murder, the accused intentionally gave two statements or oath which were diametrically contradictory to each other in relevant facts and perjured either before the Judicial Second