- (1.) The proceeding being Case No. 78C of 2010 under section 193 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah has been assailed before me. The facts of the case is that Amta Police Station Case No. 82 of 1998 dated 7th July, 1998 was registered for investigation against the then Pradhan, Basantpur Gram Panchayat on the allegation that on 7th July, 1998 at about 10 A.M. two trolley vans loaded with 12 new tube wells were coming from Basantpur Panchayat Office, when the local people detained the said trolley vans, the van pullers told them that twelve (12) pipes were loaded at the instance of the said Pradhan, namely, Asgar Ali. On such accusation, the Pradhan and one Arup China had been prosecuted under sections 406 /409 /120B of the Indian Penal Code in Special Case No. 8 of 2008.
(2.) In course of the said prosecution, the petitioner No. 1, who was the de facto complainant of the case, was examined as P.W. 1, petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, who are the van pullers, were examined as P.W. 2 and P.W. - 3 respectively and petitioner No. 4, the scribe of the FIR, was examined as C.W. 1. The said witnesses did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. The trial ultimately ended in an acquittal. However, in the judgment and order of acquittal dated 16th January, 2010, the learned Trial Judge held as follows with regard to the hostile witnesses: P.W. 1 deposed that on 7.7.98 he was the member of Basantapur Paschim para Gram Panchayat and that one Asgar Ali was the Pradhan of that Gram Panchayat and on 7.7.98 at about 12 noon she was coming in her house and police came to her house and asked her to sign on a blank paper. In answer to Court question she deposed that it was only the sole incident in which she put her signature on a blank paper. She further deposed in chief that she did not even ask the police officer as to why she was to put her signature. However, she has admitted her signature appearing on the F.I.R. which has been marked as Exbt. 1. Naturally this witness was declared hostile. ...................... C.W. 1 came to depose that he wrote the FIR as per the instruction of the police and he wrote his name and address on the right side of the last page of the P.I.R. He failed to depose on who signed on the F.I.R. He also deposed that the FIR was written at Basantpur Police Camp P.S. Amta and he started writing FIR at about 5/5.30 P.M. as per the instruction of the police officer. He also deposed that he has no enmity with any person including the police. ...................... Now let me turn my eyes to the two van pullers i.e. P.W. 2 Sristi Mallick and P.W. 3 Sukdeb Dalui. Both the witnesses were declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W. 2 depose that he was taking iron pipes from the police station in a van rickshaw and police loaded those pipes and thereafter he traveled a short distance when the police intercepted him. P.W. 3 also deposed that he was taking iron pipes from the police station in a van rickshaw and police loaded those pipes and thereafter when he travelled at a short distance the police intercepted him. Thus the evidence in chief of this witness and P.W. 2 is on the same line. I am also of the considered view that both these witnesses perjured to help the Pradhan of the village i.e. accd 1 and the co-accd i.e. accd No. 2 so that real story cannot come out before the Court leading to the conviction of both the accused persons.
(3.) In view of the aforesaid findings, the learned Trial Judge came to a conclusion that the said witnesses had perjured themselves by making false statements on oath. On such basis, the learned Trial Judge directed prosecution against them.;