Punjab & Haryana HC upholds order of Trial Court initiating proceedings against complainant for giving false evidence in rape case

Read Order: Ruksina v. State of Haryana

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, January 31,  2022: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the proceeding initiated by the Trial court under section 344 of Cr.P.C. against the appellant for furnishing false evidence and turning hostile during the Trial. 

The Trial Court while making remarks on how hostile witnesses were becoming a menace in the criminal judicial system, observed that the appellant- complainant circumvented the persecution case with an ulterior motive to help the accused. 

In the instant appeal, an FIR was registered under Sections 376, 452, 201 and 506 of the IPC by the appellant/complainant alleging that the accused committed rape upon her at gunpoint. Thereafter the accused was arrested and the gun was recovered during the investigation. 

The accused was charge-sheeted under Sections 376, 452, 201 and 506 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. During the trial, the victim/appellant and her husband did not support the prosecution case and as a result, the accused was acquitted. The Trial Court ordered initiation of proceedings under Section 344 CrPC against the victim/appellant for making false statements before the Court. 

It was observed by the Court that the prosecution witnesses turned hostile with an ulterior motive of helping the accused and that it was becoming very common for witnesses to take a complete U-turn at the trial by not supporting the prosecution, thereby leading to the acquittal of the accused for want of evidence. Thus aggrieved by this order, the High Court was approached. 

Challenging the order of the Trial Court, the appellant’s counsel argued that the necessary satisfaction which is required to be recorded before initiating proceedings under Section 344 Cr.P.C., was not recorded by the Trial Court. 

For elaborating upon the object and ingredients of Section 344 Cr.P.C., the Bench of Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu made reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mahila Vinod Kumari vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 8 SCC 34, wherein it was stated that the purpose of Section 344 Cr.P.C. was to further arm the court with a weapon to deal with more flagrant cases. Further, the Top Court reiterated that for exercising this power, the court at the time of judgement/ order delivery must express an opinion to the effect that the witness either intentionally gave false evidence or fabricated such evidence, and secondly the court must come to the conclusion that in the interest of justice the witness should be punished summarily by it. Also, the third condition, as re-established by the Top Court was that before commencing the summary trial for punishment the witness must be given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause why he should not be so punished. 

Thus, finding no infirmity in the impugned order of the Trial Court, the appeal was dismissed.