In a rare judgment, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Wednesday initiated contempt proceedings against Swathi, the “star witness” in the sensational Gokulraj murder case.
Swati, who turned hostile during the trial, has maintained her stand before the higher judiciary. Dalit youth V. Gokulraj murdered in 2015,
Justice MS Ramesh and Justice N. A division bench of Anand Venkatesh, which is hearing a batch of appeals against the trial court’s judgement, observed that the court was prima facie satisfied that Swati had made a false statement (before the court) on oath and thus caused miscarriage of justice. The administration intervened.
“We are inclined to initiate contempt proceedings against PW4 (Swati),” he observed.
The court has issued a notice to Swati seeking clarification. She said that she may take legal aid for her defence.
The bench noted that during the course of investigation, Swati was repeatedly evading making true statements or denying some obvious facts. [According to the prosecution, Swathi had accompanied Gokulraj to a temple on the fateful day before he was accosted, taken away and killed.]
“While recording the statement of PW4, we specifically recorded the conduct of PW4,” the judges said.
The judges observed that they had physically seen Swati as a witness and also had the benefit of seeing the CCTV footage (from the crime scene).
It was clear that the person seen in the video was none other than Swati with the deceased Gokulraj.
The footage was shown to Swati and the court asked her to identify the two persons in the video. Sakshi gave a statement that out of the two persons seen in the video, one person looked like Gokulraj.
however, he feigned ignorance of the identity of the woman he saw next to him. In other words, Swati refused to reveal her identity.
“We repeatedly asked PW4 to at least come up with the truth by identifying the person seen in the video and PW4 did not budge an inch. When we sought to ascertain whether PW4 was under any pressure/threat from any side which was preventing him from making a correct statement before the court, PW4 categorically stated that no pressure was exerted on him from any side was,” the court said.
After giving her ample opportunity and explaining the consequences of making a false statement before the court on oath, the judges made it clear to Swati that contempt proceedings would be initiated against her.
However, she clarified that she stood by the statement made in the court in the previous hearing, the judges observed.
The judges said that a trial is meaningful only when a witness tells the truth. Therefore, it becomes imperative that the witness, who deposes before the court, should speak the truth. This is the reason why oath is administered to the witness before recording the evidence.
Making false statements on oath in courts literally obstructs the courts from doing justice and if falsehood is condoned it would be a blow to the rule of law.
The judges said that at some stage, the courts, especially the high courts, should send a very strong message that falsehood in evidence would not be tolerated and a witness would not be allowed to go unpunished after making a false statement on oath.
Taking note of the fact that a perjury case was pending against him before the Namakkal Judicial Magistrate, the court noted that in almost all cases where proceedings for perjury are initiated, they never reach their logical end. And at some stage or the other such cases are given a chance. A decent grave
The court directed that the matter be transferred and merged in the contempt proceedings.
In the present case, Swati made a statement on oath before the Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. CrPC. While testifying before the trial court, she completely went against her statement and was treated as a hostile witness.
“PW4 is not an illiterate woman. She is an educated woman with an engineering degree. The Magistrate, even before recording the statement of Swati under Section 164 Cr.P.C., had repeatedly informed her that she should not make any statement. He is not bound to and need not answer the questions put to him by the court.
Nevertheless, Swati gave a statement on her own which was recorded on oath. The court said that the evidence of Swati is very important as the cause of action starts only from the stage where the deceased met her on the fateful day.
The investigation in a criminal case proceeds in accordance with the statements made by the witnesses and the material collected during the investigation.
Therefore, the statement given by Swati during investigation was a very important information which gave light to the prosecution to proceed further.
“If indeed some pressure was exerted on Swati to give statement under Section 164 CrPC, she should have said so at least before the trial court when her evidence was recorded.
She cannot be allowed to completely reject the statement made on oath before the Magistrate and retract at the time of trial… without giving proper explanation as to why she is retracting. It was only in such circumstances that the trial court had initiated perjury proceedings against him,” the judges said.
“It was clear to us that the person accompanying the deceased in the video was none other than Swati. However, surprisingly, while Swati was able to identify the deceased, she refused to identify herself in the footage.
It is retrospectively a false statement which was made before the court. If he is allowed to get away with making a false statement, it will amount to a travesty of the criminal justice system.
She said that there was no pressure from any side and she herself is giving the statement. If so, she is knowingly making a false statement after clearly understanding the consequences,” observed the judges.
The court adjourned the hearing for two weeks.