The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, in a rare decision on Wednesday, initiated contempt proceedings against Swathi, the “star witness” in the sensational Gokulraj murder case.
Swathi, who had turned hostile during trial, has continued to maintain her stand before the higher judiciary in the case related to murder of Dalit youth V. Gokulraj in 2015.
A Division Bench of Justices M.S. Ramesh and N. Anand Venkatesh, which is hearing a batch of appeals against the trial court judgment, observed that the court was prima facie satisfied that Swathi in facie curiae (before the court) had made a false statement on oath and thereby she had interfered in the administration of justice.
“We are inclined to initiate contempt proceedings against PW4 (Swathi),” they observed.
The court ordered notice to Swathi and sought an explanation. It said she could take legal assistance to defend herself.
The Bench noted that during examination, Swathi repeatedly evaded making a true statement or was denying certain 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 had specifically recorded the demeanour of PW4,” the judges said.
The judges observed that they had physically seen Swathi in the witness stand and also had the advantage of seeing the CCTV footage (from the scene of crime).
It was clear that the person who was seen in the video was none other than Swathi along with the deceased Gokulraj.
The footage was played to Swathi and the court asked her to identify the two persons in the video. The witness made a statement that of the two persons, seen in the video, one person looked like Gokulraj.
However, she expressed ignorance of the identity of the lady seen next to him. In other words, Swathi refused to identify herself.
“We repeatedly asked PW4 to come out with the truth at least by identifying the person who is seen in the video and PW4 did not budge an inch. When we wanted to ascertain as to whether PW4 was under any pressure/threat from any side that prevented her from making a true statement before the court, PW4 categorically stated that no pressure had been exerted on her from any quarters,” the court noted.
After affording her sufficient opportunity and explaining the consequences of making a false statement before the court on oath, the judges made it clear to Swathi that contempt proceedings would be initiated against her.
However, she made it clear that she stood by the statement made to the court at the previous hearing, the judges observed.
The judges said a trial becomes meaningful only when truth is uttered by a witness. It, therefore, becomes imperative that the witness, who deposes before the court, speak the truth. That is the reason why the witness is administered oath before the evidence is recorded.
Making a false statement on oath in courts virtually prevents the courts from administering justice and it will be a blow to the rule of law, if falsity is condoned.
At some stage, the courts, particularly the higher courts, must send a very strong message that falsity in evidence will not be tolerated and a witness will not be allowed to go scot-free after making a false statement on oath, the judges said.
Taking note of the fact that a perjury case was pending against her before the Namakkal Judicial Magistrate, the court observed that in almost all cases wherein proceedings are initiated for perjury, they never reach their logical end and at some stage, such cases are given a decent burial.
The court directed that the case be transferred and merged with the contempt proceedings.
In the present case, Swathi made a statement on oath before the magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Cr.PC. While deposing 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 a well educated woman with an engineering degree. The magistrate, even before recording the statement of Swathi under Section 164 of the Cr.PC, had repeatedly informed her that she was under no compulsion to make any statement and that she need not answer the questions put by the court,” the judges pointed out.
Yet, Swathi, on her own, proceeded to give a statement which was recorded on oath. The court said the evidence of Swathi is very vital since the cause of action starts only from the stage where the deceased is said to have met her on the fateful day.
The investigation in a criminal case proceeds in line with the statement made by the witnesses and the materials collected during the course of investigation.
Hence, the statement made by Swathi during the course of investigation was a very important piece of information which showed the light for the prosecution to proceed further.
“If really there was some pressure exerted on Swathi to give a statement under Section 164 of the Cr.PC, she should have at least stated that before the trial court when her evidence was recorded.
She cannot be allowed to completely disown the statement made by her on oath before the magistrate and retract at the time of trial..., without giving a reasonable explanation as to why she is retracting. It is only under such circumstances had the trial court initiated perjury proceedings against her,” the judges said.
“It was evident to us that the person accompanying the deceased in the video was none other than Swathi. However, surprisingly, while Swathi was able to identify the deceased, she refused to identify herself in the footage.
This ex-facie is a false statement that was made before the court. If she is allowed to go scot-free after making a false statement in facie curiae, it will be tantamount to mocking at the criminal justice system.
She stated that there was no pressure from any side and she was making the statement on her own. If that is the case, she is intentionally making a false statement after clearly understanding the consequences,” the judges observed.
The court adjourned the hearing by two weeks.
