Threatening witness not to give testimony not same as threat to give false evidence: Madras High Court

Threatening a witness against giving testimony in court does not attract the offence of threatening a witness to give false evidence under Section 195A of Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Madras High Court recently held. .Justice P Velmurugan, therefore, allowed a plea filed by a lawyer seeking quashing of a trial court order to add a Section 195A IPC charge to a criminal case filed against him on allegations that he had intimidated a witness.“A reading of the FIR and the statement recorded from the 2nd respondent (witness) shows that the 2nd respondent has only made complaint before the 1st respondent (Police) stating that when he was sitting inside the Saidapet Court premises, the petitioner threatened him not to enter into the Court premises with Advocate's Coat and not to give any evidence and if he gives any evidence, he would take away his life and nowhere either in the complaint or in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the 2nd respondent has stated that the petitioner threatened him to give false evidence … this Court finds that no ingredients to attract Section 195A IPC is made out,” the Court said..By way of background, the accused-lawyer (petitioner) was one among 75 lawyers alleged to have assembled near the residence of a former Madras High Court Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul in 2015 for an audience after a lawyer and his wife were implicated in false criminal cases by the police. They had gathered at the gates of the residence of the Chief Justice to seek a bail hearing for their fellow lawyer since it happened to be a court holiday.However, the gathering allegedly turned violent after they were denied an audience with the Chief Justice as he was out of station. The lawyers were said to have shouted slogans and threatened that they would scale the walls to enter the premises. Fifteen advocates allegedly pushed open the gate and trespassed by breaking the police cordon.The criminal trial in this case eventually culminated in a trial court’s 2024 decision to let off all accused advocates with an admonition..Notably, while this criminal case was pending in 2016, one of the lawyers arraigned as an accused was alleged to have threatened another fellow lawyer (witness) against giving any evidence against him.The witness claimed that on August 31, 2016, when he was resting in the TV room of the Saidapet Court premises, the petitioner-lawyer abused him in filthy language and assaulted him, while threatening him not to give further evidence.The witness filed a criminal complaint and the charges initially cited in this case were Sections 341 (wrongful restraint), 24(b) (definition of dishonesty), 323 (hurt), and 506(1) (criminal intimidation) of the IPC. The witness-lawyer later filed a plea in 2023 to add a charge under Section 195A of the IPC as well. In August 2024, a trial court allowed this plea and added the Section 195A charge.Aggrieved, the accused lawyer (petitioner) filed a revision petition before the High Court to question the correctness of the trial court’s August 2024 decision. .On February 13, the High Court allowed the revision plea and set aside the trial court’s decision to add the Section 195A IPC charge.The High Court, however, also issued directions to ensure that the accused lawyer does not enter the trial courtroom while the trial continues against him for other alleged offences of criminal intimidation, hurt and wrongful restraint in connection with the same alleged incident.The Court said that only his counsel can enter the courtroom during this trial.The accused may attend the trial court proceedings through video conference, the judge added. The Court also ordered the extension of police protection to the witness (also a lawyer) who accused the lawyer of intimidating him.“The Magistrate is directed to make suitable arrangements to enable the petitioner to appear through video conferencing and if the petitioner fails to comply with this order, the Magistrate is directed to file a report before this Court and based on which, suitable directions would be given to Bar Council of India for cancelling the enrolment of the petitioner,” the Court added..Advocates C Suraj and A Ashwin Kumar represented the petitioner. Additional Public Prosecutor S Sugendran represented the State. Advocate K Murugesan represented the lawyer who filed the complaint against the petitioner. .[Read Judgment]