The Meghalaya High Court in the case King Victor Ch. Marak Vs.State of Meghalaya observed and has stated while affirming the conviction of an accused in a rape case that the trial court upon disbelieving the evidence of any person on cogent grounds, should also take steps for perjury.
The bench comprising of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice W. Diengdoh was hearing an appeal made against the conviction of the accused in a case related to the aggravated penetrative sexual assault of a four-year-old girl in the year 2014.
The court in the case stated that unless the Indian judges get serious with litigants and with the witnesses, thus, the present trend of false affidavits being filed and false evidence being given may one day render the judiciary as irrelevant.
It has also been contended by the counsel appearing for the applicant before the court that he was falsely implicated in the case due to a property dispute between families, therefore, the trial court has dismissed the submissions of them on the basis of lack if evidence.
Further, the bench in the case noted that the mother of the appellant had attempted to create a narrative suggesting that the survivor did not visit their residence on the relevant date and it has also been emphasized by her before the court that the boundary dispute between the two families to insinuate that false charges had been made against the son of her.
Therefore, the bench in the case observed that the trial court was perfectly justified in disregarding the rather concocted version as it is presented by the appellant’s mother ‘in her desperate attempt to rescue her recalcitrant son’.
The bench also stated that the deposition of the brother of the appellant was also disregarded since he had admitted that he was not at the place of occurrence on the relevant date and the testimony of the maternal cousin sister of the appellant also does not inspire any confidence for such a statement to be relied upon.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case stated that the three defence witnesses in the case had been extensively coached and influenced to provide testimony that favoured the appellant’s case.
It has also been observed by the bench that the appellant not asserting that the survivor had not come to the appellant’s residence on the relevant date, the afterthought on the basis of which the three defence witnesses were being tutored and made to say in court that the survivor did not come to their residence, was obvious.
It has also been stated by the said court that the police committed a ‘serious lapse’ by not sending the survivor’s clothes for forensic examination.
Adding to it, the court stated that if the circumstances and evidence otherwise reveal the commission of the offence and the involvement of the appellant, the serious lapse on the part of the investigating agency would matter little.
