Rajendra vs State of M.P. and Another

S.N. Aggarwal, J.

The Appellant is an unfortunate father who lost his married daughter, who died an unnatural death within four years of her marriage. A case u/s 304-B IPC was registered against the husband of his daughter and other members of his family on the complaint of the Appellant. In that case, the accused persons being in-laws of the daughter of the Appellant were acquitted by the trial Court vide judgment dated 26.09.2001 in Sessions Trial case No. 229/2000. While acquitting the accused persons, the trial Court ordered for registration of a criminal case against the Appellant under Sections 193, 194 & 195 IPC for giving false evidence to procure conviction of the accused persons in a case registered against them u/s 304-B IPC. The Appellant on being tried for the offence under Sections 193, 194 & 195 IPC has been convicted by the Sessions Court for the offence u/s 195 IPC vide impugned judgment dated 01.05.2003 in Sessions Trial case No. 180/2002. Aggrieved from his conviction, the Appellant has filed this appeal seeking setting aside of his conviction.

Heard learned Counsel for both the parties for final disposal of this appeal.

Mr. V.K. Saxena, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant has argued that the Appellant initially supported the case of the prosecution on 22.02.2001 as advised to him by the police/investigating officer, but later on, when his conscience did not permit him to get the accused persons falsely convicted, gave evidence whatever according to him was the truth and this he did when he was cross-examined on 11.04.2001. Learned Counsel further argued that even the trial Court in its judgment was not sure whether the false evidence given by the Appellant was to procure conviction of the accused persons or to secure their acquittal. It is submitted that the Appellant could not have been convicted by the trial Court for offence u/s 195 IPC since there was no intention on his part to procure conviction of the accused persons for offence u/s 304-B IPC.

A perusal of the judgment dated 26.09.2001 pertaining to the acquittal of the accused persons in a case u/s 304-B IPC would show that even the trial Court was of the view that the false evidence given by the Appellant was either to secure their conviction or acquittal. There is no challenge to this finding by the State/ Respondent. In the opinion of this Court, the Appellant could not have been convicted by the trial Court for offence u/s 195 IPC unless convincing evidence was produced by the prosecution before it that the false evidence during the trial of the case u/s 304-B IPC given by the Appellant was with an intention to procure conviction of the accused persons for offence u/s 304-B IPC. Though, the Appellant could not have been convicted for offence u/s 195 IPC, but the question is whether he can be convicted for offence u/s 193 IPC which makes giving of false evidence punishable with imprisonment for a term upto seven years and also to fine. It may be noted that the Appellant was also charged for offence u/s 193 IPC.

Section 195 IPC is a larger offence and takes within its sweep the offence u/s 193 IPC. Giving false evidence in judicial proceedings is a common factor in both Sections 193 and 195 IPC. In the present case, it is not disputed that the Appellant had taken shifting stand during his evidence. Initially, he supported the case of the prosecution on 22.02.2001, but later on, in his cross-examination recorded on 11.04.2001 he took complete u -turn and supported the defense version of the accused persons. The evidence given by him on either of these two dates was false to his own knowledge. He can not be heard to say that he gave false evidence to support the case of the prosecution on 22.02.2001 at the behest of the police people. The responsibility of the statement given by a witness lies on him and he cannot escape its consequences. In the opinion of this Court, the Appellant got fullest opportunity during trial to explain his position relating to charge of giving false evidence in judicial proceedings made punishable u/s 193 IPC and therefore, since the offence u/s 193 IPC is a species of an offence u/s 195 IPC, the conviction of the Appellant can safely be converted from Section 195 IPC to Section 193 IPC. No prejudice is going to be caused to him by conversion of his conviction from a larger offence to a lesser offence. Accordingly, the conviction of the Appellant is converted from Section 195 IPC to Section 193 IPC.

I have also heard Mr. V.K. Saxena, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant and Mr. Mukund Bharadwaj, learned Public Prosecutor for the State/ Respondent on the question of quantum of sentence.

Mr. V.K. Saxena, learned senior counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant has already undergone imprisonment of five months and has suffered the agony of protracted trial for eight long years, which according to him, by itself is a sufficient punishment to the Appellant for giving false evidence in a case of unnatural death of his married daughter within four years of her marriage. Learned senior counsel further submits that the Appellant is a petty vegetable vendor and is hardly able to sustain himself and his family by selling vegetables on rehri/thela. He therefore, request that the Court may take a lenient view in the matter of sentence. On the other hand, Mr. Mukund Bharadwaj, learned Public Prosecutor for the State/ Respondent has opposed the prayer made by learned senior counsel for the Appellant for interference in the sentence awarded to the Appellant by the trial Court. The contention of Mr. Mukund Bharadwaj, learned Public Prosecutor for the State is that the Court should not take a lenient view with a person who had given false evidence in judicial proceedings.

On giving my anxious thought to the above rival submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties on the question of quantum of sentence, this Court is of the opinion that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also having regard to the fact that the Appellant is a first time offender and earn his livelihood by selling vegetable and also the fact that he has already undergone imprisonment for five months in this case and has faced the agony of protracted trial for eight long years by now and has lost his married daughter in unnatural death within four years of her marriage in which case he allegedly gave false evidence, ends of justice will be adequately met by suitably modifying the impugned sentence and sentencing him to imprisonment already undergone by him with additional fine of Rs. 10,000/-. Accordingly, the impugned conviction of the Appellant is converted from Section 195 to Section 193 IPC and the impugned order of sentence is modified to the extent that instead of sentence of imprisonment of seven years awarded to him, he is let off on the sentence already undergone by him subject to his paying additional fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand Only) to be paid within four weeks. This appeal stands disposed of accordingly.