In Re: Bijjili Papamma and Another

Yahya Ali, J.—I entirely agree with the view that the District Magistrate has taken in this case. The only circumstance pressed for consideration is that, admittedly, the petitioners stated at the earliest stage to the Circle Inspector that they knew nothing about the offence. But, it is said, that that was because of the threats held out by the accused in this case. Subsequently when statements u/s 164, Criminal Procedure Code, were recorded the witnesses spoke to have witnessed the occurrence and gave details. It is alleged that that was on account of pressure of ill-treatment by the police. The District Magistrate has pointed out in his judgment that there is no evidence to show that they were in fact beaten or threatened.... Apart from that circumstance the statements made u/s 164, Criminal'' Procedure Code and before the committing Magistrate are irreconcilable. It is obvious therefore that the petitioners should have made one of those statements knowing that it was not true. The first factor, namely, whether an offence appears to have been committed by the petitioners is prima facie established. The second factor is about the expediency in the interests of justice. In a capital case where-irreconcilable or totally contradictory statements are made by witnesses of the crime at different stages of time and the only explanation offered is that at ''one stage they were threatened by the prisoners and at another stage by the police, the witnesses in such a case should be proceeded against u/s 193, Indian Penal Code, read with Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code and a complaint should be made in order to determine whether they are liable to be convicted of the offence of perjury. In this connection Section 236, Criminal Procedure Code, and llustration (b) thereof are much in point. Both the criminal revision petitions; are dismissed.