The victim resiled from her statement. Bail granted. Trial Court was directed to take steps for a refund of compensation given to the victim & proceed with U/S 344 CrPC: Allahabad High Court
The summary procedure for a trial for giving false testimony is governed by Section 344 CrPC. According to the requirements, the relevant court must first determine whether the witness appearing in the proceeding before it has given or fabricated false evidence knowingly or willfully.
Section 439 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, deals with special powers of the High Court or Court of Session regarding bail.
Court of Allahabad in case Hariom Sharma vs State of U.P. (CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 12379 of 2022) learned bench led by HONOURABLE JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH very precisely put forward the direction against the victim to refund the amount of compensation considering the resort of section 344 of CrPC.
By means of this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., the applicant, who is involved in this case, under Section 376/34 IPC, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of the trial.
FACTS OF THE CASE: This is the second bail application. The applicant’s first bail application was denied by this Court by order on the grounds that the victim made allegations of rape against all three accused persons in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and a circular wooden piece measuring 12 cm long and 2.5 cm in circumference was discovered in the victim’s vagina.
COURT’S OBSERVATION: Hon’ble Court propound that nowadays the practice of stating falsehood is being increased and the same is on the higher side. On account of an allegation of rape against the applicant, the image of the applicant has been tarnished. He has suffered the ignominy of being involved in most hatred offenses of rape. He lost reverence in society whereas everyone has the right to live with dignity in society. On the acquittal of the accused on the ground that the victim turned hostile, the stigma against him may be washed away to a certain extent but that is not enough.
It is generally established that the presumption of innocence must be balanced against the rights of both the victim and the accused, as well as the community’s interest in upholding the rule of law. Neither the accused nor the victim, nor any witnesses, should be allowed to sabotage a criminal trial by making false statements and inventing contrivances in order to turn it into a farce. The administration of justice in a criminal trial is a serious matter that must not be made a farce by permitting key prosecution witnesses/victims to become hostile as a basis for acquittal. Complainants must be accountable and accept responsibility for their actions.
JUDGEMENT: It was declared that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence, the bail application was thereby allowed. The applicant Hariom Sharma be released on bail. The victim/prosecutrix is not entitled to the benefit of any compensation paid by the Government. Issuance of necessary direction against the
alleged prosecutrix/victim to refund the amount of compensation if any received by her. There must be compliance with provisions of section 344 CrPC at the appropriate stage if it deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY RIYA DWIVEDI