Need reporter air/digest etc.with page no, judgment on 340 crpc reg...........

harish (Querist) 04 October 2011 This query is : Resolved
Dear sir,

I need reporter AIR/Digest etc.with page no,where this judgment/order on 340 crpc is reported reg...........
Thanking u.....

Bench: S P Davare
1 cra266.07
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 266 OF 2007
Shriram Munjaji Raut,
age 55 years, occ. Labour,
r/o Shendra, Taluka and
District Parbhani ...Appellant [Original Witness No.2 in
Sessions Case]
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent .....
Shr i Joyde ep Cha t t e r j e e , advoc a t e for appe l l ant (or igina l a c cus ed) Smt . Y.M.Kshi r s aga r , A.P.P. for
respondent/State
.....
CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J.
DATED : 14th March, 2011
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1 This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 29.6.2007, rendered by the learned Sessions
Judge, Parbhani, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 18 of 2007, thereby punishing the appellant
under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for giving false evidence in Sessions Trial No. 8 of
2006, and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.500/, in
default, rigorous imprisonment for seven days.
2 cra266.07
2 The factual matrix, which gave rise for the present appeal, can be summarised as under :
Pursuant to the complaint lodged by the first informant, namely Shrirang Munjaji Raut on 14.11.2005, due to
death of Meerabai i.e. daughter of the complainant, criminal law was set into motion and the first information
report Exh. 20 was lodged bearing C.R. No. 178 of 2005 in respect of offence punishable under Section 306
r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the accused persons thereunder were tried in Sessions Trial No. 8
of 2006 by the learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani, and the said accused persons were acquitted for the offence
punishable under Sections 498A, 306 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Shriram Munjaji Raut vs The State Of Maharashtra on 14 March, 2011
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/879842/ 13 However, the show cause notice came to be issued to Shrirang Munjaji Raut, who was Prosecution Witness
No. 2, under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for giving false evidence before the court, by the
said learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani, by the judgment and the order, dated 13.4.2007, since learned Sessions
Judge, Parbhani, arrived at the conclusion that the said first informant, namely Shrirang Raut deposed falsely
before the said court in Sessions Trial No. 8 of 2006, and therefore, the learned 3 cra266.07
Sessions Judge observed that in order to have faith of public in judicial process, it is necessary to take action
against him. 4 Accordingly, in pursuance of the directions, issued by the learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani, in
Sessions Trial No. 8 of 2006, on 13.4.2007, show cause notice was issued to the said witness, namely
Shrirang Raut (PW2) under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that why action should not be
taken against him under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the offence punishable under
Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code for giving false evidence. The said proceeding was numbered as
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 18 of 2007.
5 The nonapplicant, namely Shrirang Munjaji Raut appeared in the said proceeding through the advocate and
filed his say and resisted the said proceeding.
6 Considering the evidence on record and the contents of the first information report Exh. 20, and also
considering the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and further considering the
position that giving false evidence attracts punishment for seven years under Section 193 of the Indian Penal
Code, learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani, by judgment and order 4 cra266.07
dated 29.6.2007, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 18 of 2007, punished the nonapplicant
under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for giving false evidence in Sessions Trial No. 8 of 2006
and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.500/, in default to
suffer further rigorous imprisonment for seven days.
7 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said judgment
and order, dated 29.6.2007, the appellant has preferred the present appeal and prayed for quashment thereof.
8 Admittedly, the appellant herein was Prosecution Witness No. 2 in Sessions Trial No. 8 of 2006 before the
Sessions Court, Parbhani, who had lodged the first information report Exh. 20, due to death of his daughter,
namely Meerabai, under Sections 498A, 306 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
9 Learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani, scrutinized the evidence on record and also assessed the testimony of
PW2 i.e. nonapplicant/appellant herein, namely Shrirang Munjaji Raut and observed that the matter is settled
out of court and close relatives, like father and mother of the deceased, did not support the case of deceased,
though father of deceased, namely Shrirang Munjaji Raut 5 cra266.07
i.e. appellant herein had submitted first information report Exh. 20 and set law into motion, and consequently,
offence was registered and accused were arrested for the offence under Sections 498A, 306 r/w 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, but the appellant herein resiled from his allegations in the complaint. Moreover, he was
exposed in the crossexamination and it was revealed in his evidence that the contents of his report, when
explained to him, were false and he denied the report Exh.20, which was recorded by the police as per his say,
and considering his conduct, learned Trial Court arrived at the conclusion that the appellant herein deposed
falsely before the court and further observed that in order to have faith of public in judicial process, it was
necessary to take action against him. Accordingly, since Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
empowers the court to take action against the witnesses who deposed falsely before the court and further
observed that it is necessary that proceeding under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the
offence punishable under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code is required to be initiated against the appellant
herein, and consequently, gave directions to issue show cause notice to the appellant under Section 344 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure for giving false evidence before the court that why he should not be punished
under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, as mentioned herein above.
Shriram Munjaji Raut vs The State Of Maharashtra on 14 March, 2011
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/879842/ 26 cra266.07
10 Sum and substance of the matter is that the appellant herein has retracted from his report Exh. 20, although
he has filed the same, whereupon criminal law was set into motion, by giving false evidence before the court.
11 Hence, learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani has taken the cognizance of the offence and after giving due and
reasonable opportunity to the appellant of showing cause why he should not be punished for said offence,
gave summary trial to him and sentenced him for imprisonment for the term of three months and imposed fine
of Rs.500/ upon him, under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
12 In the said context, Shri Joydeep Chatterjee, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant is
77 years old person and his one daughter namely Meerabai is already expired and his another daughter got
married during the pendency of the appeal and his third daughter, namely Muktabai is mentally retarded
person living with him. Moreover, Shri Chatterjee, learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that
deceased daughter Meerabai has got two daughters, namely Shruti and Surekha and their entire responsibility
is upon the appellant herein. It is also submitted that the appellant is a poor person, and therefore, claimed for
leniency in 7 cra266.07
sentencing the appellant and submitted that the appellant has already deposited fine amount of Rs.500/ in
court on the date of judgment itself i.e. on 29.6.2007, but as regards the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for
three months, prayed that it be reduced to one day i.e. till rising of the court, considering the afore said
genuine difficulties of the appellant.
13 Smt. Y.M.Kshirsagar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the present appeal vehemently and
submitted that in fact, the appellant should have been tried for the offence punishable under Section 193 of the
Indian Penal Code for giving the false evidence before the court, but the learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani,
while rendering the judgment and order, dated 13.4.2007 in Sessions Trial No. 8 of 2006, directed to issue
show cause notice to the appellant under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for giving false
evidence before the court and invoked the summary procedure for trial for giving the false evidence under
Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which attracts punishment of rigorous imprisonment for three
months and ceiling of fine amount of Rs.500/, which has been already awarded to the appellant, which is
p r o p e r a n d wo u l d me e t t h e e n d s o f j u s t i c e a n d n o i n t e r f e r e n c e t h e r e i n i s wa r r a n t e d i n t h e a p p e l l a t e
jurisdiction. 8 cra266.07
15 Considering the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, admittedly direction was
issued by the learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani while rendering the judgment and order in Sessions Trial No. 8
of 2006 on 13.4.2007, but issued show cause notice to the appellant under Section 344 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure for giving false evidence before the court that why he should not be punished under
Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code and learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani has invoked the summary
procedure for trial for giving false evidence under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the
State has not filed any appeal against the said judgment and order. Accordingly, the appellant was tried in
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 18 of 2007 summarily under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure for giving false evidence before the court and took the cognizance of the offence after giving the
appellant reasonable opportunity of showing cause why he should not be punished for such offence and
sentenced him for imprisonment for the term of three months and also imposed fine of Rs.500/ upon him.
Admittedly, there is ceiling upon the fine amount under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at Rs.
500/ and maximum fine amount has been imposed upon him, which has been already deposited by him on
29.6.2007 i.e. the date of judgment and order. 9 cra266.07
16 As regards the punishment imposed upon the appellant by sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment
for three months, and considering the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective
parties in that respect, and considering the advance age of the appellant and the dependants upon him and also
Shriram Munjaji Raut vs The State Of Maharashtra on 14 March, 2011
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/879842/ 3considering the fact that he has given the false evidence, which deserves proper and appropriate signal to the
society that giving false evidence cannot be tolerated and also while striking the balance between them, I am
of the view that imposition of rigorous imprisonment for one month upon the appellant instead of rigorous
imprisonment for three months would meet the ends of justice.
17 In the result, present appeal is allowed
partly and the order of awarding punishment to the appellant under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure for giving false evidence in Sessions Trial No. 8 of 2006 is confirmed, but the sentence of three
months rigorous imprisonment awarded to the appellant by the learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani is modified
and the appellant is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month instead of three months, and the
fine of Rs.500/ imposed upon the appellant is maintained and the order to that effect passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Parbhani stands confirmed, and the appeal is disposed of accordingly. The appellant to
surrender before the learned Sessions 10 cra266.07
Judge, Parbhani within three weeks from the date of this order, failing which the learned Sessions Judge,
Parbhani shall take suitable action against the appellant, in accordance with law. Office to communicate the
afore said order to the learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani forthwith.
(SHRIHARI P. DAVARE),
JUDGE.
dbm/cra266.07
Shriram Munjaji Raut vs The State Of Maharashtra on 14 March, 2011

Follow Query

Report Abuse