Unless Indian Judges Get Serious, Trend Of False Affidavits And False Evidence May Render Judiciary Irrelevant: Meghalaya High Court

The Meghalaya High Court, while affirming the conviction of an accused in a rape case, said the trial court upon disbelieving the evidence of any person on cogent grounds, should also take steps for perjury.

“Unless Indian judges get serious with litigants and witnesses, the present trend of false affidavits being filed and false evidence being given may one day render the judiciary irrelevant," the court said.

A bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice W. Diengdoh made these observations while hearing an appeal against the conviction of the accused in a case related to the aggravated penetrative sexual assault of a four-year-old girl in 2014.

The counsel for the appellant contended that he was falsely implicated in the case due to a property dispute between families, however the trial court had dismissed this submission for lack of evidence.

Perusing the statements of witnesses, the bench noted that the mother of the appellant had attempted to create a narrative suggesting that the survivor did not visit their residence on the relevant date. She had also emphasized a boundary dispute between the two families to insinuate that false charges had been made against her son, the court noted.

The bench said trial court was perfectly justified in disregarding the rather concocted version presented by the appellant’s mother “in her desperate attempt to rescue her recalcitrant son.”

The deposition of the brother of the appellant was also disregarded since he had admitted that he was not at the place of occurrence on the relevant date. The testimony of the maternal cousin sister of the appellant also does not inspire any confidence for such a statement to be relied upon, the bench said.

After careful consideration, the court reached the conclusion that the three defense witnesses in the case had been extensively coached and influenced to provide testimony that favored the appellant's case.

"In the light of the appellant not asserting that the survivor had not come to the appellant’s residence on the relevant date, the afterthought on the basis of which the three defence witnesses were tutored and made to say in court that the survivor did not come to their residence, was obvious," the bench observed.

The court also said the police committed a “serious lapse” by not sending the survivor's clothes for forensic examination. However, it added that if the circumstances and evidence otherwise reveal the commission of the offence and the involvement of the appellant, the serious lapse on the part of the investigating agency would matter little.

Case Title: King Victor Ch. Marak Vs.State of Meghalaya

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Meg) 20

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment