- (1.) The Petitioner is the sole accused in C. C. No. 282 of 1964 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Magistrate, Nellore. He has filed this petition under Ss. 435, 439 and 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure Praying for quashing the proceedings in C. C. No. 282 of 1964.
(2.) The relevant facts are as follows : In Sessions Case No. 27 of 1964, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Nellore, one Kadiveti Venkataramareddi alias Ramireddi stood charged of an offence under S. 302 I. P. C. for having committed the murder of his wife Kameswaramma. In that case, the present accused was examined as P. W. 1. Soon after the occurrence he had prepared a statement signed by himself relating to the occurrence and presented it to the Sub Inspector of Police, Allur. That statement was not marked in evidence in the Sessions Court as it was found by the learned Sessions Judge to come under Section 162, Cr. P. C., because even before Joseph Tangraj gave that statement to the police, the latter had received intimation from the Medical Officer and registered it as F. I. R. and commenced investigation. It appears that in that statement , he had mentioned that he had seen the accused coming out of the rooms in which the deceased was lying with injuries. When Tangraj was examined as P. W. 1. in the Sessions Court, he denied this particular fact though he admitted the truth of his earlier statement on all the other facts which were innocuous so far as the accused in the Sessions case was concerned. Accordingly on the basis of the earlier statement which he had presented to the police as well as similar statement which had been recorded from him by the sub-Inspector as well as the Circle Inspector, Tangraj was treated as a hostile witness and cross-examined by the prosecution. Ultimately, the prosecution in that case filed to make out a case against the accused Venkatramareddi and also to prove the particular fact that the accused was found coming out of the room where the deceased was lying injured. The result was that the learned Sessions Judge pronounced judgment on 22-8-1964 acquitting Venkataramareddi. In that judgment he observed as follows : "In his cross-examination P. W. 1 admitted having stated in that report to the police that on 5-4-64 at about 1-00 P. M. he was sleeping in room No. 3 while B. Jayaram Reddi P. W. 3) P. Sesha Reddi and K. Ramanaiah, the students, were there and at that time S. Prabhavati (P. W. 2) came to the window and cried out "Sir Sir" and he suddenly woke up and himself and the three students who were there came out of the room and then he saw the accused going away from room No. 2 taking his two children to the downstairs. But he explained it by saying that it did not happen like that and he gave that statement falsely like that on account of the pressure of the police. He also admitted having stated in that report that he thought that the accused must have accused those injuries to the deceased, as none else was present in the room at tat time. On the other hand, he has stated in his evidence given in this Court that at about 1-00 P.m. on that day in his sleep he heard some commotion in the verandah of the upstairs and on hearing that he woke up and found none in his room when he came out of his room he found two or three persons there who were strangers to him and he found the door No. 2 open and when he looked into that room, he found the deceased lying there with some bleeding injuries and he did not see the accused there at all P. W. 1 is not an illiterate. he has been working as a teacher in a Higher Secondary School in Allur. It is not possible to readily accept his explanation that he made false allegations in his report on account of the pressure of the police. Having regard to the circumstances of this case, I am of opinion, that P. W. 1 has intentionally given false evidence in this court. This kind of perjuring in Courts must be strongly deprecated. I think, to discourage evils of perjury and in the interests of Justice, it is expedient that P. W. 1 should be prosecuted for having given false evidence intentionally in this Court. Accordingly I order notice to P. W. 1. for hearing him in the matter".
(3.) Tangaraj filed a statement that he had made the earlier statement before the police due to pressure by the police. The learned Sessions Judge ultimately filed a complaint under section 479-A, Cr. P. C. for an offence under section I. P. C. . The complaint is substantially to the same effect as what I have extracted above from the judgment but giving the extract above from the judgment but giving the extract of the report which Tangraj had given to the police signed by him.;