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.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Bhanot, J.

1. This appeal arises out of judgment dated 26.02.1988 rendered by the learned trial court in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1 of 1987 (State Vs Satish Kumar Jain) under Section 344 Cr.P.C. By the impugned judgment the learned trial court has convicted the appellant and sentenced him one month rigorous imprisonment.

2. The brief facts of the case are these;

An FIR was got registered under Sections 147 , 148, 307/149 and 426 IPC. The appellant was the first informant in the aforesaid case. In pursuance of the FIR an investigation was set on foot which resulted in the chargesheet being filed against the accused persons in the said case. The accused persons were charged and the trial commenced. The appellant appeared as a prosecution witness before the trial court and made contradictory statements regarding the identity of the accused and their criminal intent. The accused persons were acquitted by the trial court. The trial court after acquitting the accused persons in the said trial took out proceedings against the appellant under Section 344 Cr.P.C. for giving false evidence during the trial.

3. Shri Subir lal, learned counsel holding brief of Shri Swetashwa Agarwal for the appellant submits that the conditions precedent for convicting the applicant under Section 344 are not satisfied inasmuch as the applicant did not knowingly or wilfully gave any false evidence. There was a gap of three years between the examination in chief and the cross examination. There was a memory lapse which resulted in the aforesaid inconsistencies in the testimony of the appellant. The applicant was not confronted with material particulars of the contradictions in his statement which led the court to conclude that the latter statement was deliberate falsehood. The appellant was not declared hostile by the prosecution.

4. Shri Rishi Chaddha, learned AGA contends that on account of the variation in the statement under cross examination and the examination in chief, the court was left with no option but to draw proceedings under Section 344 Cr.P.C.

5. Heard Sri Subir Lal, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Swetashwa Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Rishi Chaddha, learned AGA for the State.

6. The examination in chief of the appellant before the trial court was conducted on 01.03.1984. In the examination in chief the appellant stated that he had witnessed the incident and named Chinoti Ram, Jagannath, Pinnu, Pappu and three or four others as the principal offenders who assaulted Rahul with lathis and iron rods. He also testified that the said Jagannath was wielding a firearm, and had threatened the injured. Jagannath said that this was the lesson for litigating against accused persons. In the meantime Ambika Prasad caught hold of Chinoti Ram’s hand resulted in discharge of the firearm causing injuries to Ambika Prasad.

7. The appellant was cross examined three years later on 06.08.1987. Under cross examination, the appellant deposed that the injured Rahul, Ambika Prasad, Akhilesh were not carrying any arms. He had not seen any injuries on the person of Chinoti Ram and others. Further, under cross examination he stated that he could not identify Pappu and Pinnu, or any accused persons by their name and parentage. None of the accused persons had the intention to cause any injury or commit the murder. There was some scuffle between the parties in which some persons got injured.

8. The impugne