Dr. Didar Singh and Another vs The State of Punjab

D.S. Tewatia, J.—Petitioner Didar Singh and his wife Smt. Gurcharan Kaur have sought the quashing of order dated 20th April, 1977 Annexure P. 1 ordering the lodging of the complaint u/s 193 of the Indian Penal Code against them, the complaint lodged in consequence thereof by Judicial Magistrate T Class, Batala on 26th April, 1977 and the order passed by the Additional Session Judge, Gurdaspur, dated 28th October, 1977, holding that the appeal against the order Annexure P. 1 was not competent. Didar Singh was said to have made a statement on oath in a criminal case title State v. Piara Singh resulting from F.I.R. No. 127 dated 10th September, 1971 u/s 342/506, Indian Penal Code, at Police Station, Batala as P.W. 4, which was considered to be at variance with his earlier statement made as P.W. 3 in a criminal case titled State v. Sarbjit Singh and others.

So far as Gurbachan Kaur is concerned, her statement made in the criminal case State v. Piara Singh as P.W. 2 was said to be at variance with the statement Exhibit D. A, which she had earlier made to the Investigating Officer u/s 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure during the investigation of case State v. Sarbjit Singh and others.

Taking the case of Gurbachan Kaur, first, it may be observed that when she was confronted with Exhibit D.A. when making her statement in State v. Piara Singh as P.W. 2, she stated that she did not remember whether she had made any statement like Exhibit D.A.

Statements recorded by an Investigating Officer tinder Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are generally not signed by a witness. Witnesses whose statements in the very proceedings in which the statements u/s 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been earlier recorded by the Investigating. Officer in the event of running counter their statements u/s 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are confronted with such statements That is done only to make the witness aware of the presence of such a statement having been made by the witness. The witness may admit to have made such statement or may not have admitted of having made such a statement It is then for the Court to assess the value of the evidence given on oath which ran counter to alleged statement of the witness to the Investigating Officer u/s 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but it is never taken that a witness whose statement in Court on oath runs counter to his or her earlier statement made to the Investigating Officer u/s 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which the witness either does not admit as having made or does not remember as having made, in making the statement that he does not oath before the Court, commits any perjury. The question of the witness having committed perjury would arise only if the witness was to admit the fact that Officer with which he or she had been confronted in the Court while making the statement in Court and if the statement in Court was at variance with such an admittedly made statement by the witness, as already observed such is not the case here. Smt. Gurbachan Kaur did not admit the fact that she had made statement Exhibit D.A. to the Investigation Officer. Her reply was that she did not remember whether she made that statement. That reply cannot be taken by any stretch of imagination as admission of the fact that she had made statement Exhibit D.A. before the Investigating Officer. Hence in view of the facts as they are, she committed no prejury and, therefore, the question of lodging any complaint against her did not arise.

Now coming to the case of Didar Singh, admittedly his testimony as P.W. 3 in State v. Sarbjit Singh was taken down in two versions; Vernacular and English. It is the vernacular version that it is at variance with the deposition as P.W. 4 in criminal case title State v. Piara Singh. The English version of his statement in State v. Sarbjit Singh is not a version with his statement in Piara Singh''s case. Without going into the question as to what was the Court language and whether only the vernacular versions in case of divergence between two versions recorded by the Court is considered aunthentic, in my opinion where admittedly two versions are taken down of a statement one in English version then it cannot be said in law that the witness had in fact committed perjury in making a statement in Court which ran counter to the version of his earlier statement.

For the reasons aforementioned, I allow this petition, quash the order dated 20th April, 1977 and the complaint dated 26th April, 1977.