evil of perjury
INTRODUCTION
Best Bakery massacre case key witness Zahira Sheikh's often retractions from her statements and repeated turning hostile during the trial and before the Supreme Court as well has underscored the need for using the existing law against perjury in all criminal trials.
Though the high rate of acquittals largely due to the witnesses turning hostile has been a matter of concern for the law makers and Law Commission, it has however been felt that the menace of buying the witnesses by influential accused could be handled by strictly enforcing certain provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
As the veracity of recent revelations made by Tehelka alleging Zahira had received Rs 18 lakhs for turning hostile are open for a judicial scrutiny as the key witness has denied the charge, the sting operation has nevertheless mounted public outcry against the witnesses virtually taking the courts for a ride.
Faced with the retraction of statement given to it by Zahira, the Supreme Court on December 6, 2004, issued a show cause notice to her as to why she should not tried for committing contempt of the court.
Zahira is not an exception to the rampant malaise of back-stepping by certain witnesses who are crucial to the prosecution for proving the charges beyond reasonable doubts.
Legal experts say that law relating to the offence of perjury is given a statutory definition under Section 191 of the Indian Penal Code and provides seven year jail term for offences relating to giving false evidence against public justice. But they fail to recall a case in which a person was prosecuted for making a false statement before the court or filing a false affidavit before it.
A former Supreme Court judge once sarcastically said the courts would have more cases of perjury than other litigations if the courts start taking action against falsehood.
In a suo motu proceeding against a Chennai lawyer R Karuppan, the apex court stressed upon stern and effective measure to prevent the
Best Bakery massacre case key witness Zahira Sheikh's often retractions from her statements and repeated turning hostile during the trial and before the Supreme Court as well has underscored the need for using the existing law against perjury in all criminal trials.
Though the high rate of acquittals largely due to the witnesses turning hostile has been a matter of concern for the law makers and Law Commission, it has however been felt that the menace of buying the witnesses by influential accused could be handled by strictly enforcing certain provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
As the veracity of recent revelations made by Tehelka alleging Zahira had received Rs 18 lakhs for turning hostile are open for a judicial scrutiny as the key witness has denied the charge, the sting operation has nevertheless mounted public outcry against the witnesses virtually taking the courts for a ride.
Faced with the retraction of statement given to it by Zahira, the Supreme Court on December 6, 2004, issued a show cause notice to her as to why she should not tried for committing contempt of the court.
Zahira is not an exception to the rampant malaise of back-stepping by certain witnesses who are crucial to the prosecution for proving the charges beyond reasonable doubts.
Legal experts say that law relating to the offence of perjury is given a statutory definition under Section 191 of the Indian Penal Code and provides seven year jail term for offences relating to giving false evidence against public justice. But they fail to recall a case in which a person was prosecuted for making a false statement before the court or filing a false affidavit before it.
A former Supreme Court judge once sarcastically said the courts would have more cases of perjury than other litigations if the courts start taking action against falsehood.
In a suo motu proceeding against a Chennai lawyer R Karuppan, the apex court stressed upon stern and effective measure to prevent the