Mens Rea Essential Element U/S 344 CrPC: Chhattisgarh High Court Quashes Proceedings Against Tahsildar For Giving ‘False Evidence’ In Trial Court

While finding the proceedings to be an abuse of process of law, the Single Bench of Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari said,

“The condition precedent for the exercise of power under Section 344 of Cr.P.C. requires that the at the time of delivering judgment or final order the witness appearing before it has knowingly or wilfully given false evidence or has fabricated false evidence with the intention that such evidence should be used in such proceeding, and that the Court is satisfied that it is necessary and expedient and in the interest of justice to try him summarily for such offence.”

Factual Background

The petitioner was posted as the Executive Magistrate-cum-Tahsildar at Pandariya in Kabirdham district. As a part of his duties, he prepared an identification memo on 23.08.2012 of seized properties i.e. iron rods in a criminal case involving purchase 75 KG stolen iron rods. The said iron rods were duly identified by complainant by the size of the rods, which was mentioned in the invoice of seized iron rods as 8 mm.

However, the petitioner while deposing before the trial court stated in the chief-examination that the complainant identified the said iron rods on the basis of the marks available on the rods. Thereafter, the Magistrate while passing the judgment observed that the petitioner has deposed contrary to the identification memo as the complainant has not identified such rods on the basis of any marks.

Therefore, on the basis of such evidence, while passing the judgment of acquittal against the accused, the Magistrate directed to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioner under Section 344 of Cr.P.C. for giving false evidence. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, had challenged the same before the Revisional Court, which was dismissed by the impugned order. Hence, this petition was filed.

Contentions

It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he had prepared the said identification memo on 23.08.2012 and he was examined after more than six months i.e. on 28.02.2013. So, there is every possibility that the petitioner might have forgotten the contents of identification memo and even if there was any discrepancy in the statement, then the Public Prosecutor should have refreshed the memory of the petitioner. But no suggestion was given at the time of examination. It was also contended that there was no mens rea on the part of the petitioner in giving false evidence.

Court’s Observations

After giving careful thoughts to the evidence on record and contentions of the parties, the Court observed that mens rea is an essential element under Section 344 and thus, it is required to ascertain whether the witness had knowingly or wilfully given such evidence.

Applying the parameter in the instant case, the Court was of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be said to have given any false evidence so as to warrant the initiation of a proceeding under Section 344, Cr.P.C. Accordingly, it observed,

“The petitioner has categorically deposed that the complainant has identified the iron rods before him and further, in the cross-examination nothing was brought on record in this regard and even the witness was not declared hostile by the prosecution. Therefore, only because of some infirmity in the statement, it cannot be held that the witness knowingly or wilfully had given the false evidence.”

Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and observations and directions made against the petitioner in that order were also quashed.

Case Title: D.R. Thakur v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case No.: CRMP No. 1119 of 2014

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Chh) 7

Judgment Dated: 17^th February 2023

Coram: D.K. Tiwari, J.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. C.B. Kesharwani, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate