Back
GAJENDRA KUMAR
Ram Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. Satya Prakash Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicant to quash as well as to stay the effect and operation of the entire proceedings of Criminal Misc. Case No.1 of 2023 (State of U.P. Vs. Vijay Singh and others) along with cognizance cognizance order dated 12.01.2023 and notice dated 18.5.2023 arising out of judgement and order dated 03.11.2022 having S.T. No.38/2018 (State vs. Narayandas Kushwaha and another), under Section 344 Cr.P.C., Police Station Nadigaon, District Jalaun, peding before the learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Jalaun at Orai.
3. Brief facts of the case is that the applicant is government teacher posted in a Primary School. The father of the applicant namely Durga Prasad lodged a first information report against Narayan Das Kushwaha, Suratan Singh and Lakhan Singh under section 306 IPC and 3(2) (V) SC/ST Act, Police Station Nadigaon, District Jalaun on 20.10.2018. Applicant is the writer of the tahrir spoken by his father and villagers.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant was informed
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....
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 upheld the trial court's authority under Section 344 Cr.P.C. to address perjury, requiring a clear opinion of intentional falsehood before action is taken.
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 court ruled that initiating perjury proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C requires clear evidence of falsehood that impacts judicial proceedings, not mere inaccuracies.
The court determines that the discretionary power under Section 311 CrPC for summoning witnesses must be exercised judiciously; prior inconsistent evidence negates the necessity for re-examination.
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
