The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that just because a person is acquitted in a criminal case doesn’t automatically imply that false evidence was presented against such person.
While dismissing one such complainant under Section 195 IPC of an acquitted person (complainant herein), bench of Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi held,
“Merely because the petitioner-complainant was acquitted…would not by itself be a ground to hold that false evidence had been given during the course of proceedings of that case. If such a presumption was to be drawn, then, every case of acquittal in a criminal case would result in a subsequent prosecution of the complainant-party at the instance of a private individual.“
This kind of practice can’t be encouraged as there would be no end to frivolous litigation, the Court added.
It was the year 2003 when an FIR was filed against Zile Singh (complainant herein) and his father under Sections 148, 149, 323, 452, 506 IPC at the instance of Joginder Singh (respondent herein). The Magistrate Court concluded the trial by acquitting them.
Afterward, Zile filed a complaint under Section 195 IPC against Joginder Singh, with the allegations that he had known that at the time when alleged incident took place, Singh had been admitted in hospital accompanied by his father-Surat Singh. Moreover, he said that he and his father had pleaded alibi which was accepted and thus led to their acquittal. Therefore, Joginder had committed an offence under Section 195 IPC.
The Magistrate Court concluded that the trial court had not recorded specific finding to the effect that Joginder Singh had provided false evidence against the complainant. The ASJ affirmed the same in revision proceeding.
Perusing Section 195 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the High Court said, “Section 195 Cr.P.C. would show that where false evidence is given in Court then, proceedings can be initiated only on the basis of a complaint in writing by that Court or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. No proceeding can be maintained at the instance of a private individual even though he may be the person aggrieved in some manner. In the instant case, no such complaint has been instituted at the instance of the Court.“
It eventually resulted into the dismissal of the plea.
Advocate Lajpat Sharma appeared for the petitioner. Neeraj Poswal, AAG Haryana appeared represented the respondent No. 4.
Case Title: Zile Singh v. Joginder Singh and ors.