[Gokulraj Murder Case] Madras High Court Initiates Suo Moto Contempt Proceedings Against Witness For Making False Statement Under Oath
story
The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court has initiated suo moto contempt proceedings against Swathi, a prime witness to the Gokulraj Murder Case.Gokulraj, a Dalit youth who was 21 year old at the time of his death was abducted from Tiruchengode Arthanareeswarar temple on June 23, 2015. The next day, his body was found with his head severed. It was later found that Gokulraj was killed by...
Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court has initiated suo moto contempt proceedings against Swathi, a prime witness to the Gokulraj Murder Case.
Gokulraj, a Dalit youth who was 21 year old at the time of his death was abducted from Tiruchengode Arthanareeswarar temple on June 23, 2015. The next day, his body was found with his head severed. It was later found that Gokulraj was killed by members of a fringe outfit for having a relationship with an upper caste woman.
A special court in Madurai had found Yuvraj, leader of Dheeran Chinnamalai Peravai as the prime accused and convicted him along with nine others with life imprisonment in March this year.
While hearing the appeals challenging the life imprisonment, the madurai bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Anand Venkatesh summoned Swathi.
During the previous hearing on November 25, Swathi was showed CCTV footages of the deceased Gokulraj coming out of the temple with her. Though Swathi identified the man in the video as Gokulraj, she failed to identify the woman as herself.
The court however observed that Swathi was making false statements under oath. When asked if she was being forced to make such statements, Swathi started weeping and later fainted.
Even though the court warned that contempt proceedings will be initiated for such acts, Swathi stood by her statements. This led the court to initiate contempt proceedings against Swathi.
we are prima facie satisfied that PW4 in facie curiae has made a false statement on oath and thereby, she has interfered in the administration of justice and hence, we are inclined to initiate Contempt proceedings against PW4.
Adding that hostile witnesses affect rendering of justice, the bench highlighted the importance of witnesses uttering the truth.
A trial becomes meaningful only when truth is uttered by a witness....It therefore, becomes imperative that the witness, who deposes before the court speaks the truth. That is the reason why the witness is administered oath before recording the evidence. It is the statement of the witness made on oath and the materials that are collected during the course of trial, which ultimately throws light and enables a Judge to conclude as to whether the prosecution has proved the case or not.
The court also went on to state that such conduct shakes the public confidence in the judiciary. Therefore, apart from proceeding for perjury, the High Court also had authority to initiate contempt proceedings against such witness to ensure proper administration of justice.
A Court cannot ignore such a conduct which has the propensity to shake the public confidence in Judicial Institutions. If the Courts become lackadaisical in dealing with false statements given by witnesses on oath, it will virtually dislodge the administration of justice and the dignity of the Court. Hence, apart from the alternative remedy of proceeding against the witness for perjury, it is always open to the Higher Courts to initiate contempt proceedings to ensure that the administration of justice remains unpolluted due to false evidence being tendered before the temple of justice.
The court thus issued a notice to Swathi seeking her explanation. She was also given liberty to seek legal assistance to defend her case. Further, the court also merged the perjury proceedings against Swathi pending before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Namakkal with the present case and decided to hear it together.
Case Title: Yuvraj and others v State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 489
Click Here To Read/Download Order