Witness Cannot Be Prosecuted For Perjury U/s 193 CrPC For Mere Inconsistency In His Statements
Case: N.S. Nandiesha Reddy vs. Kavitha Mahesh
Coram: CJI NV Ramana, Justices AS Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy
Case No: CA 4821 OF 2012
Court Observation: “Even in a case where the Court comes to the conclusion on the aspect of intentional false evidence, still the Court has to form an opinion whether it is expedient in the interest of justice to initiate an inquiry into the offences of false evidence, having regard to the overall factual matrix as well as the probable consequences of such prosecution. The Court must be satisfied that such an inquiry is required in the interest of justice and is appropriate in the facts of the case.”
“The position of law which is well established is that even in a case where the Court comes to the conclusion on the aspect of intentional false evidence, still the Court has to form an opinion whether it is expedient in the interest of justice to initiate an inquiry into the offences of false evidence, having regard to the overall factual matrix as well as the probable consequences of such prosecution. The Court must be satisfied that such an inquiry is required in the interest of justice and is appropriate in the facts of the case. In that backdrop, insofar as the observation made by the learned Judge of the election tribunal relating to the Returning Officer being pivotal, we fully concur with the same. However, it is also to be noted, merely because of that position the Returning Officer in the instant case need not be exposed to prosecution”
[doc id=7536]
Previous Judgments
Writ Jurisdiction Not For Deciding ‘Hotly Disputed Questions Of Facts’, Reiterates Supreme Court
Sanction U/S 197 CrPC Required To Prosecute Public Servants If Alleged Act Committed Is Directly Concerned With Official Duty: Supreme Court – Directly Download Judgment
Keywords
Witness, Supreme Court, CrPC & Judgment.
