MAHILA VINOD KUMARI versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2008] 10 S.C.R. 869 · Decided: 11-07-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 10 S.C.R. 869 
~ 
MAHILA VINOD KUMARI 
A 
II. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
(SLP (Criminal) No. 4950-4951 of 2008) 
JULY 11, 2008 
B 
-
"'/ 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHAVIVAM, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: ss. 340 & 3441 
Penal Code, 1960: s. 376 
Perjury - Petitioner lodging a report against two persons c 
for committing rape - Resiled from statement made during 
investigation - Acquitting accused persons trial Court directed 
to take cognizance against piosecutrix in terms of S. 344 of 
the Code -Admission of guilt by petitioner - Trial Court found 
-~ 1 
prosecutrix guilty of committing the offence of perjury, sen-
D 
tenced her to undergo imprisonment for 3 months - Appeal 
dismissed by High Court - Correctvero of of - Held: Correct -
The purpose of enacting S. 344 Cr. PC. is to eradicate the evil 
of perjury and also fabrication of evidence - even recourse to 
S.340 (l)CrPC could bo taken by Courts in case they failed to E 
take action against such witness such witness underS. 344 
Cr.PC.- In the facts and circumstances of the case, Trial Court 
has rightly taken action against the Prosecutrix in terms of 
S. 344 CrPC - No infirmity found in the order of Courts below 
A 
warranting intetference. 
F 
s. 344 - Power of Courts to take action against witnesses 
for Committing the offence of perjury!fabriction of false evi~ 
dence - Discussed. 
The Petitioner lodged a report against two persons G 
at the Police Station for committing rape on her, one after 
,J. 
another. The accused persons faced trial for alleged com-
mission of offence punishable under Section 376(2)(9) of 
the Indian Penal Code, 1860. During trial, the petitioner 
869 
H 
870 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 10 S.C.R. 
-f 
A 
stated that she had actually not been raped. As she resiled 
from the statement made during investigation, she w,as 
permitted to be cross-examined by the prosecution. She 
even denied to have lodged the first information report 
and to have given any statement to the police. Trial Court 
B acquitting the accused persons found that the petitioner 
..-' 
had tendered false.evidence and had fabricated evidence 
y 
against the accused persons with the intention that such 
evidence shall be used in the proceedings, and, there-
fore, directed cognizance of offence in terms of Section 
c 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to be taken 
against her. A show-cause notice was issued and the case 
was registered against her. She filed a reply, admitting her 
guilt. Trial Court sentenced her to undergo three months' 
simple imprisonment. Appeal filed thereagainst by the 
D petitioner was dismissed by the High Court. Hence the 
present Special Leave Petition. 
-t· A· 
Dismissing the petition, the Court 
· HELD: 1. It is a settled position in law that so far as 
E sexual offences are concerned, sanctity is attached to the' 
statement of a· victim. This Court, has, in several cases, 
held that the evidence of the prosecutrix alone is suffi-
cient for the purpose of conviction if it is found to be reli-
able, cogent and credible. In the present case, on the basis 
of the allegations made by the petitioner, two persons were 
t 
F 
arrested and had to face trial and suffered the ignominy of 
.,.. 
being involved in a serious offence like rape. Their acquittal, 
may, to a certain extent, have washed away the stigme, but 
that is not enough. [Para 6] [873-F,G & H; 874-A] 
G 
2.1. The purpose of enacting Section 344, Cr.P.C. ap-
pears to be furt'1er arm the. Court with a weapon to deal 
with more flagrant cases and not to take away the ~eapon 
already in its possession. The object of the legislature ·uri-
..... 
'derlying enactment of the provision is that the evil of per-
H jury and fabrication of evidence has to be eradicated and 
MAHILA VINOD KUMARi v. STATE OF MADHYA 
871 
PRADESH 
can be better achieved now as it is open to the courts to A 
take recourse to Section 340(1) Cr.P.C. in cases in which 
they are failed to take action under Section 344 Cr.P.C. 
[Para 6] [874-A,B & C] 
2.2. For exercising the powers under s.344/ the Code 
the Court at the time of delivery of judgment or final order 8 
must at the first instance express an opinion to the effect 
that the witness before it has either intentionally given 
false evidence or fabricated such evidence. The second 
condition is that the Court must come to the conclusion 
that in the interests of justice the witness concerned C 
should be punished summarily by it for

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.