Perjury is not allowed in the court of law

PLJ 1985 SC 448 [Appellate Jurisdiction] Present : ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH & MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, JJ MUHAMMAD ASLAM—Appellant versus THE STATE—Respondent Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 1982, heard on 2-2-1985. (i) Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of i860)— ------- S. "02 read with Constitution of Pakistan, 1973—Art. 185—Murder —Offence of - Conviction for — Punishment— Deceased allegedly committing murder of father of appellant about 12/13 years before oc- 9iirrence— Revenge, however, taken by appellant only attaining age of 15 years—Held : Sentence of appellant to be reduced from death to imprisonment for life—Sentence of fine, however, being inadequate, same enhanced from Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 25,000. [Pp. 450 & 451J/4 (ii) Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of I860)- ——S 195—Perjury—Offence of—Court—Duty to award diterrerent punishment—Held : Persons deliberately telling lie iq, courts of law to be awarded deterrent punishment so as to serve as warning to others in order to minimise litigation in courts. [P. 450]5 (iii) Pakistan Penal Code, I860 (XLV of I860)— ----- S. 195—Perjury—Offence of—Court—Duty of—Witnesses appear ing in court of law very often making bleatently alse statements against other persons even in cases involving death sentance—Held : Court to take serious notice in case f witness deliberately perjuring himself. [P. 451]C Mr Ijaz Hussain Bata/vi, Advocate Supreme Court with Mr. M. A, Zafar. Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Mr. Amar Raza A. Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mr. Walayat Umar Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Complainant. Mr. S M. Zubair, A. A. Q. Punjab a,nd Mr. Ijaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate«on-Record for State. Date of bearing: 2-2-1985, JUDGMENT Aslam Riaz Hussaio, J.-~This appeal by Muhammad Aslam is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 16-6-1980, dismissing his appeal in a murder case. 2. Muhammad Aslam appellant was accused of the murder of his own uncle Mehdi Hassan. . The motive for the murder is stated to be that when he was a young boy of 2/3 years of age, his farther Hadi Hassan, disappeared and was suspected to have been murdered by his step-brother Mehdi Hassan (deceased) in the present case. When ths appellant grew up to be about 15/16 years old, he murdered Mehdi Hassan to avenge his father's death. 3. The facts of the prosecution case, briefly stated, are that on 25-7-1974 at 12 noon Mehdi Hassan deceased was in^in a Tonga along- with Muhammad Hussain, Muhammad Naseem and Abdus Sattar, P. Ws. When they reached ear Basti Jammunwala. Muhammad Aslam appellant came from behind on a horse, with a gun in his hand, and hrew a, challenge to the deceased that' he would take revengj of his father's murder Abdus Sattar who as driving the Tonga stopped it and alighted from it. Muhammad Hussain and Muhammad Naseem P. Ws. .who were sitting in the Tonga also got down, and stepped aside. Mehdi Hasan deceased, however, did not move. uhammad Aslam appellant fired a shot at him killing him on the spot and then left, alongwith the gun, saying that he ad taken revenge of his fa.ther'3 murder. The matter was to imprisonment for life. We, however, feel that the sentence of fine imposed on him is inadequate. Therefore, after hearing his counsel on this point, we enhance the sentence of fine from Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 25,000 In default of payment of fine he shall suffer further R. 1. for 5 years If recovered the fine shall be paid as compensation to the hiirs of the deceased. With the above modifications the appeal stands partly allowed. 9. Before parting with the matter, it may be mentioned that Muhammad Hussain P. W. 8 committed perjury by concealing certain facts before a Court of law. We, therefore, issued him a notice on 82-1982. He appeared today in response to the said notice and was represented by Mr. Aamar Raza A. Khan, Advocate. On being questioned he admitted before us that Mst, Asia was his sister, but he added that she was his step-sister. He also admitted that she was married to Rana Suleman Khan, Advocate When asked why he had told a lie in the trial Court, he merely prayed that he should be par doned. 10. We are not satisfied with this plea and are strongly of the view that persons who deliberately tell a lie in Courts of aw and are proved to have committed this offence should be awarded deterrent punishment so as to serve as a warning to thers in order to minimise the litigation n Courts. We have been noticing over the years that very often witn-sses appearing in Courts of law make blatently false statements against other persons, even in cases involving the death sentence The reason for this, we feel, is that a general impression prevails in the public that one can tell lies on oath in Courts of law with complete impunity. This impressior, is strengthened by the fact that even persons who are held by the Court to be false witnesses are hardly even prosecuted. This in turn further encourages the tendency to make false statements in Courts which ha- rcsulted in undermining public faith in the existing judicial systsm We, therefore, feel that serious notice should al\vays be taken by the Courts whenever it is apparent from the record that a witness has deli berately perjured himself. 11. We may also mention here that Ashiq AH D. W. 1 who appeared as a defence witness also found by the learned trial Court to have com mitted perjury. It may be noticed that the learned trial Court has observed at p. 37 of the printed book (line 12) that the hxplanation put forward by Ashiq Aii D. W. 1, was an afterthought, coined to attempt to save the life of his nephew Muhammad Aslara. it is urther observed by the life of bis nephew Muhammad Asiam. It is further observed by the learned trial Court at p. 43 (line 18 of the printed book) that :— " .... He has tried to save Muhammad Aslam accused not by extending forgiveness but by telling a lie We, therefore, feel that the learned trial Court should have taken action against him as well. 12. As a result of the above observation we direct that the learned trial Court should proceed against P. W. it (Muhammad Husiam; aud D. W. 1 (Ashiq All) under section 476, Cr. P. C. and consider prosecu ting them for offence under section 195, Cr. P. C, Appeal dismissed, THE END