E-Paper
Chandigarh head constable’s conviction in graft case: Perjury proceedings initiated against 2 defence witnesses
While pronouncing the order, the court stated that there was a deliberate and conscious attempt on the part of the two witnesses to give false evidence to support the false defence of the accused.
The CBI court of special judge Alka Malik has initiated perjury proceedings – legal action taken against someone who is accused of lying under oath– against two witnesses in the case involving a UT police head constable Ram Kumar who was sentenced to seven years in a corruption case.
The court issued show-cause notices to Swaran Kaur, a resident of Sarangpur village, and Satya Tiwari, a resident of Dadumajra, both of whom misled the court by submitting false evidence.
They have been asked to appear in court on September 1 for probe into the offence of perjury.
The corruption case against the head constable was filed by one Anita, along with Satya Tewari and her neighbour Swaran Kaur. All three were crucial witnesses in the case.
While pronouncing the order, the court stated that there was a deliberate and conscious attempt on the part of the two witnesses to give false evidence to support the false defence of the accused.
“Law is fairly settled on the point that the evil of perjury has presumed an alarming position in cases depending on oral evidence. In order to deal with the menace effectively, it is desirable for the courts to use the provisions as envisaged under Section 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure more effectively and frequently,” held the CBI special judge.
Their trail of lies
Defence witness number 4 Swaran Kaur testified that she went to the CBI office on being asked by complainant Anita. She said that villagers had instigated her to file a complaint in CBI so as to avoid the payment of money to accused qua the alleged expenses incurred by him in visit to Chhattisgarh for the recovery of a child.
“Her narration of the fact that she had filed a written complaint on dictation of CBI officials is found to be totally false. When she was confronted on this in cross examination, she tried to wriggle out of the situation by deposing that she did not tell anyone that the complaint was dictated by a CBI official,” observed the judge.
It was further observed, “When she was asked specifically as to why she waited until today she had given a very vague reply by saying that nobody asked her about this and she thought that the matter would have come to an end. It is quite improbable to believe that during this long span of eight years, this witness had not informed anyone before coming to depose before this court that a false complaint was written by her under dictation of the CBI official and no such bribe was ever demanded by the accused. Her entire deposition is thus found to be total falsehood as she has come to depose only under the pressure of the accused.”
On defence witness number 5, Satya Tewari, the court observed that she had accompanied the complainant, Anita, to the CBI office on May 19, 2017, when the complaint was moved. She is part of the entire pre-trap, trap and post-trap proceedings. Though she was not examined as a prosecution witness, she has appeared as defence witness in this case and deposed that the accused has neither demanded bribes nor accepted the same. However, when her testimony is scrutinised as a whole, it can be inferred that this witness has deposed total falsehood before this court and has not maintained the sanctity of oath taken by her. She has further deposed that they had gone to the CBI office to move an application so as to avoid the payment of money expended by the accused at the time of visit to Chhattisgarh for recovery of the child. She has also deposed that the complaint was written as per the dictation of the CBI officer.
Her testimony when viewed as a whole clearly proves that in fact the complaint was given by them of their own and now she is deposing falsely. Various recorded conversations reveal her conversation with the accused and when she was asked about the same in cross-examination she could not help it. She could not wriggle out of the documentary and electronic evidence put to her, said the court.
