Madhya Pradesh HC Directs Initiation Of Proceedings Against Witnesses For Giving False Evidence; Acquits 2 Women In Alleged Murder Case

The Court allowed the appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction under Section 302 of the IPC by the trial court. The appellants were initially convicted on the basis of allegations that they had administered poison to the deceased and attempted to stage his death as a suicide by hanging. The trial court convicted both women in 2010, sentencing them to life imprisonment.

A Division Bench of Justice G.S. Ahluwalia and Justice Vishal Mishra held, “Once, this Court has come to a conclusion that the witnesses had deliberately deposed falsely before the Trial Court, and even the police deliberately did not investigate the matter properly and left multiple angles unattended thereby facilitating the prosecution witnesses to falsely implicate the appellants, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that it is a fit case, where a direction can be issued for prosecution” of the witnesses and directed the “the Trial Court is directed to initiate proceedings against these witnesses for giving false evidence before the Court of law.”

Government Advocate Akshay Namdeo represented the respondent.

The prosecution’s case was based on circumstantial evidence. The High Court stated that it was “unfortunate” how the Trial Court took the matter in “a most casual manner” as it did not appreciate the evidence in the light of provisions of law.

“The Trial Court must realize that they are dealing with the life and liberty of a person and no one should be punished without sound principles of law. Blindly accepting the Examination-in-Chief of the prosecution witnesses, without testing the same on the anvil of their crossexamination is not the proper way of appreciation of evidence. The Trial Court should not forget that cross-examination is the only tool in the hand of the accused to dislodge the prosecution case,” the Court remarked.

The Bench stated that ignoring the crossexamination was not the proper method of deciding the Trial. “In the present case, one lady has remained in jail for 14 years and another was compelled to live in jail along with her minor kids. Therefore, the manner in which the Trial Court handled the case is not appreciated,” it remarked.

The Court also pointed out that the bottle of pesticide recovered from the courtyard of the appellant's house was easily available in the market and was generally found in the house of agriculturists. “Therefore, recovery of bottle of pesticide from the courtyard of the house of Surajbai cannot be said to be an incriminating circumstance,” the Bench remarked.

Consequently, the trial court’s judgment was set aside.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal

Cause Title: Surajbai & Ors. v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2024:MPHC-JBP:50470)

Click here to read/download the Judgment