SAWA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SAWA and four others have filed this revision application challenging the order dated 11-4-1972 of the Sessions Judge, Pali, by which he ordered the prosecution of the petitioners for having committed perjury in criminal sessions case No. 29/1971 State vs. Bersingh decided on 1 2-1972 by him. Mst. Dhapu was the wife of one Jugti Dan. Jugtidan was murdered. His widow Mst. Dhapu and her suspected paramour Roop Singh were tried for the murder of Jugti Dan but they were ultimately acquitted. Mst. Dhapu remarried Roop Singh. After sometime Roop Singh was also murdered by some person who could not be traced by the police and his murder remained unpunished. Sometime in July, 1971 Mst. Dhapu was also found killed in the field of her second husband Roop Singh. For the murder of Mst Dhapu Ber Singh was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Pali and it was this case which was registered sessions case No. 29/1971. Ber Singh was acquitted on 1-2-1972. In this case petitioners SAWA, Pema, Mana, Beeja and Daukhad were examined as prosecution witnesses. Their statements were got recorded by the police under sec. 164 GBR. before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pali. When these witnesses were examined at the committing stage, they resiled from their statements and all of them stated that their statements under sec. 164 Cr. P. C. were recorded under coercion of the Police. At the trial they stuck to their statements which they made before the committing court. The learned Sessions Judge while acquitting the accused Ber Singh recorded in para 29 of his judgment as follows: "in concluding my judgment, I cannot remain mum without expressing condemnation about the attitude adopted by the prosecution witnesses who have gone hostile; and specially Sivia P. W. 6 Pema P. W. 7, Vijiya P. W. 13, Dauda P. W. 12 and Manaram P. W. 14 who deliberately suppressed the facts in order to help the culprit to go scot-free of the commission of a most cruel murder committed of a lady in the broad day light, and thus perjured themselves by resiling from their statements given on oath as referred in the foregoing paras. In my view, such, persons should be prosecuted and punished for giving false evidence on oath in order to eradicate the evils of perjury and fabrication of false evidence in the interest of justice, and I, therefore, order that Sivia, Pema, Vijiya. Dauda and Manaram should be prosecuted for the offence of perjury which they appear to have committed. Let an extract of the judgment be drawn for serving notice to the above said witnesses as to why they should not be prosecuted for committing perjury. "

(2.) IN pursuance of this order notices were issued to these petitioners to show cause as to why they should not be prosecuted under sec. 193 GBR. IN answer to this notice they filed a joint reply on 11-4-1972 and it was submitted on their behalf that whatever they stated before the committing court and at the trial was truthful. They are illiterate persons and the police gave them beating and forced them to give their statements against their will before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Pali and accordingly they gave their statements under sec. 164 CD. as directed by the police. Their statements before the committing court as well as before the Sessions Judge, according to them, were the correct statements. The learned Sessions Judge in a very brief order was not satisfied with the reply made by these petitioners and recorded the order that separate complaints be made against them having given false evidence. It is this order that has been challenged by these petitioners in this court.