Mst. KARIM KHATOON vs THE STATE

ORDER

' ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-This petition by Mst. Karim Khatoon is directed against the dismissal of her criminal appeal by a learned Single Judge of the High Court (Bahawalpur Bench), vide the impugned judgment dated 27-6-1983.

2. Facts giving rise to the petition are briefly as follows:- ' Mst. Karim Khatoon (petitioner herein) was married to Manzoor Ahmad. They lived together happily for sometime and four children were born out of the wedlock. But thereafter they fell out and Mst. Karim Khatoon, according to her statement, left her husband's house and went to her mother. Sometime thereafter she left her mother's house and began to reside with one Allah Wasaya "because I was afraid of my husband". She also filed a suit for dissolution of her marriage against her husband Manzoor Ahmad, who in retaliation is stated to have got a criminal case registered against her and some of her relatives. She was, however, granted bail in that case and aforesaid Allah Wasaya stood surety for her. Subsequently, on 20-7-1981, an F. I. R. Alleging abduction of Mst. Karim Khatoon was lodged by Allah Wasaya at Police Station, Chaligoth, District Bahawalpur, under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, against her (Mst. Karim Khatoon's) husband Manzoor Ahmad, as well as 3 other persons namely Rasoola, Abdul Karim and Allah Bakhsh. The version of the incident as given in the F. I. R. Was briefly, that when she was returning from village Tahirwali in the company of two other women after having condoled the death of a relative, her husband Manzoor and the 3 co-accused, named above, turned up and forcibly abducted her.

' During the investigation of the case the police got her statement under section 164,,Cr. P. C.

Recorded before a Magistrate 1st Class, Ahmadpur East, wherein she reiterated the above- mentioned version and added that the accused persons first took her to the house of Ramzan, from where they took her to the house of Abdur Rebman, where all the four accused forcibly committed rape on her.

' At the trial Mst. Karim Khatoon, was examined as P. W.

6. During her statement before the said Court she stated that she was forcibly abducted by the said accused and taken to the house of Muhammad Ramzan. Thereafter however, she changed the earlier version and stated that they took her to the house of her mother and that nobody had committed rape on her. On this she was got declared hostile by the learned P. S. I., who was then allowed to be cross-examined, during which she admitted having made statement under section 164, Cr. P. C., supporting the prosecution version but explained. That she had done so under the pressure of the police.

4. After completion of her statement at the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur, issued her a notice under section 476, Cr. P. C., requiring her to show-cause why she should not be convicted under section 193, P. P. C. For having committed perjury. In her reply to the show-cause notice she stated as follows:- "I got recorded my statement under section 164, Cr. P. C. I have got recorded this statement through the police. My today's statement is correct. ' My statement which I made before the Magistrate Ist Class, Ahmadpur East, is wrong and false. I may be pardoned."

' The learned trial Judge thereupon convicted her under section 193, P. P. C. And sentenced her to two years' R. I. And a fine of Rs, 500 or six months' R. I. In case of default of payment of fine.

4-A. On appeal the High Court reduced her sentence to one year R. I. By the impugned judgment.

' But she is still not satisfied and has filed the present petition for leave to appeal against the aforesaid judgment.

5. Before us the learned counsel for the petitioner did not contest the case on merits and only submitted that Mst. Karim Khatoon should be dealt' with leniently as she had made the statement under section 164, Cr. P. C., under pressure of the police. He explained that Mst. Karim Khatoon had grievance against her husband and the police used her to implicate three other persons, i,e, Rasoola, Abdul Karim and Allah Bakhsh against whom the police had its own grievance .But did not have any material to prosecute them. They, therefore, found this a good opportunity to achieve their goal and induced her to make an allegation against her husband as well as the three co- accused, stating that all of them bad abducted and committed rape on her. She complained and a case under the Hudood Ordinance was registered. She was then made by the police to appear and make a statement under section 164, Cr. P. C., before a Magistrate 1st Class. He pleaded that since she was pressurised by the police to make the false statement, this Court may take a lenient view and reduce her sentence of imprisonment to that already undergone. He pointed out that out of one year's R. I. She has already undergone 4 months' R. I. And has earned 4 months remission under the Prison Rules and that the remaining 4 months sentence should be remitted by this Court.

We are afraid, we are not inclined to take a lenient view of the matter. Perjury is one of the most heinous social and moral offences. It is not only an offence punishable under the law but is also against the injunction of the Holy Qur'an (Sura Al-Nisa : 135). It is an evil which tends to disrupt the very basis of the social order and make a mockery of the judicial system be it Islamic or otherwise.

Any person who deliberately tells a lie during the solemn proceedings of a Court of law, knowing fully well that he is thereby likely to ruin the life or reputation of an innocent person or put into jeopardy his liberty by falsely involving him in a criminal case or cause damage to his property, does not deserve any leniency and ought never be let off lightly.

' The tendency on the part of the Courts to take a light view of such cases has, over the decades, tended to encourage perjury in our Courts, with the result that it has now become so common that witnesses do not feel any qualms of conscience while making a false statement in a Court of law and have ceased to consider it as an act involving any moral turpitude. The Courts must arrest this tendency with a firm hand and do everything in their power to eradicate this evil from its roots. '

Awarding stiffer sentences would be a positive step in this direction.

' In the present case Mst. Karim Khatoon has admittedly perjured herself and deserves no leniency whatsoever. She has, in fact, been given an undue concession by the High Court which reduced her sentence.

' With the above observations the petition is dismissed.