21 Yrs Have Elapsed: Kerala High Court Quashes Perjury Case Against Hostile Witness In ‘Kalluvaathukkal Liquor Tragedy' Case

The Kerala High Court recently quashed proceedings against a witness who had turned hostile in the ‘Kalluvaathukkal liquor tragedy' case.

The court was of the view that since the main accused persons were convicted in the trial and the evidence of the hostile witness did not have any impact on the case, prosecuting the witness 21 years after giving evidence, would be an abuse of the process of the court.

A single bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that:

“It is not any and every statement made by a witness that the court should initiate action for perjury. If such a course of action is adopted, there would be very little time for courts for any serious work other than directing prosecution for perjury. The gravity of the false statement, the circumstances under which such statement was made and the repercussion of such a statement, are matters which the court ought to bear in mind before initiating a prosecution for the offence of perjury. Resiling from an earlier sworn statement need not in every circumstance result in initiating action for giving false evidence. Individual discretion must be exercised based on the factors mentioned above.”

The petitioner was prosecution witness no. 71 in the ‘Kalluvaathukkal liquor tragedy' case tried by the sessions court. When he was examined in court, his statements were contrary to what was recorded before the Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC. He was hence declared a hostile witness in the trial. Subsequently, the sessions court proceeded against the petitioner under Section 340 of the CrPC and the complaint was forwarded to the Magistrate who took cognizance of the offence. The petitioner had approached the High Court to quash the proceedings against him in connection with the perjury.

Advocate M T Suresh Kumar appearing for the petitioner argued that since most of the accused persons were already convicted in the trial and given the long lapse of time the court ought not to have initiated proceedings against the petitioner. Public Prosecutor Vipin Narayan opposed the plea and submitted that proceedings were initiated on legal and valid grounds and did not warrant interference of the court.   

The court relied on the decisions in Thomman v. IInd Additional Sessions Judge (1993 (2) KLT 774) and Kuriakose v. State of Kerala (1995 (1) KLT 76) to conclude that

“for every false statement made before a court, prosecution under section 340 of the Cr.P.C ought not to be initiated. Similarly, it is not necessary in every case that the subsequent statement before court given as a deposition should necessarily be the false one. Therefore, a summary enquiry is to be conducted by the prosecuting court itself to arrive at a conclusion that the statement given before court was false.”

In the matter at hand the court held that as the false evidence of the petitioner did not prejudice the trial and since a long time had passed since the petitioner’s evidence, there was no reason to prosecute the petitioner. On these grounds, the court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner noting that:

“At this distance of time, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, prosecuting the petitioner for giving false evidence would only be a waste of judicial time especially since despite petitioner's evidence, the prosecuting agency had brought forth sufficient evidence and material to prove the guilt of the accused.”

Case Title: Rajan V State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 161

Click here to read/download judgment