Tuesday, 10 February 2015

Perjury is a heinous offence

PLJ 1998 Cr. C. (Peshawar) 1027 [Bench D.I. Khan]
THE STATE-Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 20 of 1997, dismissed on 11.2.1998.
 Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (Act XLV of 1860)--
-S. 193-Perjury-Charge of-Conviction to-F.I.R. registered U/Ss. 302/ 324/148/149 PPC was lodged by appellant-After registration of case, usual police investigation was carried out and later on, complete challan was submitted in trial Court-When appellant was examined on Oath he stated that he had not lodged any report, he resiled from his earlier statement--A person who deliberately tells a lie during solemn proceedings of a Court of law knowing fully well that he is thereby likely to rain life/reputation of an innocent citizen or jeopardise his liberty by falsely involving him in a criminal case, does not deserve any leniency and ought never be left off lightly-Appellant has admittedly perjured him self and deserves no leniency whatsoever-Appellant was rightly convicted/sentenced by trial Court-Appeal dismissed.
[Pp. 1030 & 1031] A, B & C
Mr. Gohar Zaman Khan Kundi, Advocate for Appellant. Dost Muhammad Khan, Advocate for Complainant. Muhammad Khan Khakwani, Ad%'oeate for State. Date of hearing: 11.2.1998.

Appellant Haji Umar Khan S/0 Sahar Jan R/0 Inayat Mithakhel.     id District Baanu, was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Bannu (Mr.  Sattar Khan) U/'S. 193 P.P.C. and sentenced to 3 years rigorous  lent. Additionally he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- Vpisand) or ID default thereof to undergo further S.I. for a period of

2.   Aggrieved, the appellant has challenged the legality/validity of the said judgment and has filed this appeal U/S. 410 R/W 476(4) (b) Cr. P.C.
3.           On the other hand, Akbar Zaman, the brother of the deceased has filed a  revision  petition  (No.  8/97)  against the  said judgment for theenhancement of the sentence awarded to appellant Haji Umar Khan and has prayed that the sentence so awarded be enhanced to seven years rigorousimprisonment.
4.          Since the appeal and the revision petition are the out-come of the same judgment, therefore, I propose to dispose of both the matters by thisjudgment.
5.           Briefly stated the Prosecution case is that one Falak Naz Khan (the brother of Akbar Zaman, petitioner in revision petition) was killed by Gul Manzoor Shah etc. with Kalashinkovs. Accordingly a report was lodged against, all of them by appellant Haji Umar Khan at Police Station, MandanTehsil and District Bannu. On the basis of the said report F.l.R. No. 50 was registered on 3.2.1995 U/Ss. 302/324/148/149 P.P.C. The case was investi­ gated into by the local Police and after the completion of the usual investiga­ tion complete chalian was submitted against them in the Sessions Court.
6.           The Sessions Judge commenced the trial, framed the charge and examined some of the prosecution witnesses. When appellant (Haji Umar Khan) was examined on Oath as PW-6 by the trial Court on 2.10.1996. he stated on Oath that he had not lodged the F.l.R. (Ex. P. A/1) on his own. For the sake of convenience the relevant portion of his statement is reproduced below :-
I have not seen the occurrence nor the accused making firing as I was confined inside my house  
Self added that the accused are completely innocent and they have been falsely charged and I am being compelled to give false evidence against them   

I have seen the report Ex. P.A/1 in the shape of Murasila which correctly bears my signature. It is correct to suggest that I have made this report to the I.O. in the village/not seen any one and I was told by the Police to give such like statement as mentioned in the report Ex. P.A/1 which.......................................................
It is incorrect to suggest that I am again giving a false statement in this regard 1 have heard the contents of the report today in the Court which I dis-own because I have not given such a statement to the I.O. Self added that in fact this story was given by Akbar Zaman etc, but I was asked to sign the same. I didaccordingly.   
The_statement_jn the report E_x. P.A/1 was .narrated in my presence to the LO. try; AkbarZaman and I was asked to_sign the same which I did accordingly. Even ! had not made any complaint against the I.O. for obtaining my signature on the report in the manner so,stated above. It is incorrect to suggest that I have been paid Rs. 2,5Q,000/- by the accused for resiling from my statement/FIR and it is further incorrect that before starting the dealt with the accused they have also threatened to kill rny major son if I do not resile from my statement. It is also incorrect to suggest that I have perjured myself while giving false statement on Oath...,The report was not read over to me by the I.O. while obtaining my signature on it,"
(The underlining is mine)
7.  The Sessions Judge, after the perusal of the record was however of the view that net only that Haji Umar Khan had lodged the F.I.R. as acomplainant but that he had also signed the same in token of its correctness. The Sessions Judge, therefore, charged the appellant U/S. 193 P.P.C. The charge was duly read over and explained to him. The appellant, pleaded not. guilty and claimed trial.
8.    Mir Payo Khan, Reader of the Sessions Judge Bannu, was. 3Xaffiiaed as P.W-1 OB: Oath. He produced the certified copies of F.I.R. No. 50registered on 3.2.1995 (Ex. PA/1) and the statement of Hqji Umar Khan. PW-1 was not cross-examined by the appellant. The Sessions Judge then examined the appellant and recorded his statement U/S. 342 Cr. P.C. He professed innocence and stated that he had given the true account of the occurrence in his statement recorded during the trial because he was bound to do so morally. He, however, refused to produce any evidence in his defence or appear as his own witness and record his statement U/S. 340(2) Cr. P.C. in disproof of the charges levelled against him.
9.                After taking into consideration the prosecution evidence and hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as stated above. Hence this appeal.
10.          Mr. Gauhar Zaman Khan Kundi, Advocate learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Muhammad Khan Khakwani, Advocate, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Dost Muhammad Khan, Advocate, learned counsel for Akbar Zaman brother of deceased present and heard at length. I have also perused the record of the case carefully.
11.   A perusal of the statement of P.W.-l as well as the impugned judgment would show that the trial Court has discussed the facts of the case in detail and has given valid reasons for its conclusion. The judgment of the Sessions Judge is neither arbitrary nor perverse and, therefore, cannot, be interfered with by his Court. I do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Sessions Judge has not applied his mind while deciding this case. It is evident from the record of the case that the First Information Report (Copy Ex. P.A/1) registered U/Ss. 302/324/ 148/149 P.P.C. was in fact lodged by the appellant. It is also apparent from the record that after the registration of the case, usual police investigation was carried out and later, complete challan was submitted in the trial Court against Niaz All Shah and others. When the appellant was examined on Oath he stated that he had not lodged any report. In other words he resiled from his earlier statement. I am,  herefore, of the considered view that the appellant was rightly convicted/sentenced by the trial Court. No exception can be taken to the impugned judgment. A person who deliberately tells a lie during the solemn proceedings of a Court of law, knowing fully well that he is thereby likely to ruin the life/reputation of an innocent citizen or jeopardise his liberty by falsely involving him in a criminal case, does not deserve any leniency and ought never be left off lightly. It was held by an
Honourable Bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled Mst. Karim Khatoon vs. The State., reported as P.L.D. 1984 Supreme Court 44, comprising of His Lordship Mr. Justice Aslam Riaz Hussain and Mr. Justice Nasim Hassan Shah, as under :-
"Perjury is one of the most heinous social and  moral offences. It is not only an offence punishable under the law but is also against the injunction of the Holy Quran. It is an evil which tends to disrupt the very basis of the social order and make a mockery of the judicial system, be it Islamic or otherwise. Any person who deliberately tells a lie during the solemn proceedings of a Court of law, knowing fully well that he is thereby likely to ruin the life or reputation of an innocent person or put into jeopardy his liberty by falsely involving him in a criminal case or cause damage to his property, does not deserve any leniency and ought never belet off lightly.
The tendency on the part of the Courts to take a light view of such cases has, over the decades, tended to encourage perjury in our Courts, with the result that it has now become so common that witnesses do not feel any qualms of conscience. While making a false statement in a Court of law and have ceased to consider it as an "act involving any moral turpitude. The Courts must arrest this tendency with a firm hand and so everything in their power to eradicate this evil from its roots. Awarding stiffer sentences would be a positive step in this direction".
12. In the instant case the appellant has admittedly perjured himself and deserves no leniency whatsoever. In fact he has been dealt with leniently „ by the trial Court which had awarded him lesser punishment. This appeal has no substance and is accordingly dismissed. Since the appellant is a sick person being a heart patient, therefore, I would not like to enhance the punishment already awarded to him. The criminal revision petition is also dismissed.
(A.S.)                                                                              Appeal dismissed.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Contact International Lawyer

If you have any queries related with this post you can contact at internationallawyerinfo@gmail.com

Salman Yousaf Khan
International Lawyer