Present: Bertram C.J.

ANANTHAM v. SAIADO.

67-P. C. Mannar, 9,633.

False evidence-Contradictory statements-Prosecution must allege which is false-Loose statements in immaterial introductory matters not to be made subject of charge.

When a witness is charged for giving false evidence, it is not competent to the prosecution to allege that the witness made two contradictory statements, one of which must be false. The prosecution must commit itself to one which it alleges to be false, and prove that it is false to the knowledge of the person making it.

" Loose statements in immaterial introductory matters, made in such a manner that it is obvious that the witness is not thinking what he is saying are not appropriate subjects for a charge of giving false evidence."

THE complaint in this case was as follows: -

Seemampillai Mudaliyar Anantham, Additional Police Magistrate, Mannar, complainant.

Vs.

Kader Mohideen Saiado of Jaffna, accused.

On this 8th day of January, 1920.

I do hereby complain that the accused above named did on or about the 30th day of December, 1919, at Mannar, being examined as a witness in Police Court, Mannar, case No. 9,633, a judicial proceeding then pending before the said Court, and being bound by an affirmation to state the truth, intentionally give false evidence by knowingly and falsely stating;-

(a) " Last Thursday morning (meaning December 25, 1919)- do not know the date-I left Jaffna for Eantilampiddy. I broke journey at Medawachchiya, and started again by the night mail. No/, I came by the day train and, got down at Maliwady and went to Eantilampiddy. " Whereas in truth and in fact he did not travel on that day by train from Jaffna or break journey at Medawachchiya and start again by night mail or day train and got down at Maliwady.

(b) " Beached Talaimannar next morning" (meaning December 28, 1919).

" No, I reached Talaimannar that night about 10 P.M. " (meaning night of December 27, 1919). One of which statement must be false.

(e) " I did not see the dog. " " I taw the dog running. "

One of which statement must be false, and that he hag thereby committed an offence punishable under section 190 of the Ceylon Penal Code

(Signed) 8. M. ANANTHAM,

Additional Police Magistrate.

The following was the judgment of the learned Police Magistrate ( B. G. de Glanville, Esq.): -

Accused is charged with giving false evidence in making the statements indicated in the plaint. It is quite clear from the evidence of the Magistrate before whom the statements were made that they were not made inadvertently or without intention, but that in each case the accused, when he found that he had made a statement which could not be true or which was leading him into difficulties, promptly and deliberately contradicted his .first statement and made a completely opposite statement.

Reading through his evidence as a whole, it is very difficult to get away from the conclusion that the accused was inventing the greater part of his story, but of this there is, of course, no proof, and it is not asserted by the prosecution.

There can to my mind, however, be no possible doubt that the accused deliberately on the three occasions indicated made statements which he knew to be false. It is contended on behalf of the accused that no motive is shown, but I see no reason to come to any finding as to his motive, whether his motive was originally to deceive the Court or to conceal his own actions, or whether he made the statements recklessly, and on finding they led to trouble equally recklessly contradicted them, is, I consider, immaterial.

The statements standing above may appear to be insignificant, but on taking them in conjunction with the rest of the accused's evidence and the account of the Magistrate as to how they were made, it is clear that they were of considerable importance, as being details elicited from the accused in his account of his own actions an