Hon’ble Supreme Court held that perjury proceedings initiated by Trial Court and High Court does not suffer from any infirmity and as such the petitions were dismissed,

As she resiled from the statement made during investigation, she was permitted to be cross-examined by the prosecution. She even denied to have lodged the first information report (Exh.P-1) and to have given any statement 1 to the police (Exh.P-2). In view of the statement of the petitioner, the two accused persons were acquitted by judgment dated 28.11.2001.

Another gem of the mindset of some women and her family members

Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that being a girl of tender age, she was pressurized by her mother and uncle to give a false report. This is at variance with the statement made in court during trial to the effect that she had not reported anything to the police.

Purpose of Section 344, Cr.P.C.

The purpose of enacting Section 344, Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 479-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Old Code’) appears to be further arm the Court with a weapon to deal with more flagrant cases and not to take away the weapon already in its possession. The object of the legislature underlying enactment of the provision is that the evil of perjury and fabrication of evidence has to be eradicated and can be better achieved now as it is open to the courts to take recourse to Section 340(1) (corresponding to Section 476 of the Old Code) in cases in which they are failed to take action under Section 344 Cr.P.C.

Conditions to initiate CrPC 344 proceedings

For exercising the powers under the section the Court at the time of delivery of judgment or final order must at the first instance express an opinion to the effect that the witness before it has either intentionally given false evidence or fabricated such evidence. The second condition is that the Court must come to the conclusion that in the interests of justice the witness concerned should be punished summarily by it for the offence which appears to have been committed by the witness. And the third condition is that before commencing the summary trial for punishment the witness must be given reasonable opportunity of showing cause why he should not be so punished. All these conditions arc mandatory. [See Narayanswamy v. State of Muharashtra, (1971) 2 SCC 182].

Mahila Vinod Kumari Vs State Of M.P on 11 July, 2008

---

Citations : [2008 SCC 8 34], [2008 KERLT 3 509], [2009 SCJ 1 89], [2009 SCJ 1 396], [2008 AIR SC 2965], [2008 SCR 10 869], [2008 SCALE 10 97], [2008 SLT 6 419], [2008 AIR SC 4989], [2009 MPJR 1 7], [2008 CALCRILR 2 490], [2009 ILR MP 332], [2008 KLD 2 513], [2008 RAJLW 3 2379], [2008 AIOL 814], [2009 BOMCR CRI SC 2 494], [2008 SCC CRI 3 414], [2008 AIC SC 69 189], [2008 AIR SCW 4989], [2008 CRLJ SC 3867]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/46073/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae92e4b01497114142e2

https://www.legalauthority.in/judgement/mahila-vinod-kumari-vs-state-of-m-p-13468