A Sessions Court in Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh convicted a woman in a false testimony case under Section 195 IPC and sentenced her to 4 years 6 months and 8 days, the same duration that was spent in jail by the man in jail whom she falsely implicated for kidnapping and rape.

The Additional Sessions Judge Gyanendra Tripathi imposed a fine of Rs 5.88 lakh on the women with the provision that her failure to pay the fine would result in an additional six months of imprisonment.

Government Counsel Sunil Pandey appeared for the State.

Brief Facts-

Respondent Nisha’s mother filed a rape case against one Ajay @ Raghav under Sections 342, 363, 366, 376 of the IPC. Nisha in her statement recorded under Section 164, CrPC, corroborated the prosecution’s case. She claimed that Ajay @ Raghav, abducted her from a marketplace and took her to Delhi for 10 days, where he and 4-5 other men subjected her to repeated acts of rape. During her cross-examination, Nisha contradicted her earlier statements and refuted her claims of sexual assault by Ajay.

The Court stated that it is highly objectionable to use police and Court as medium to achieve one’s legal objective.

The Court also stated that while it is essential for the government, administration, and courts to safeguard women's safety through relevant policies and laws, it does not justify women unfairly exploiting them to harm men's interests.

The Court further emphasised that though the exemptions should be provided but the actions of women in the present case are likely to harm the real victims in the society.

However, the Court considered the age and marital status of the guilty women and according to the Court, it would only be justified if the Court balance the two viewpoint while giving punishment.

The Court refused to accept the women’s claim that her husband was frustrated with the repeated court summons and therefore asked her to retract her statement so that the case would be resolved swiftly.

The Court stated that the present case underscores a grave concern for society as a whole, where a labour class person was unjustly denied for a long period, in gross misuse of the law made for the protection of women.

The Court determined the fine on the basis of daily wages set up by the state of Uttar Pradesh government for unskilled labour.

The Court directed that the fine would be paid to Ajay who was implicated falsely.

Cause Title: State of U.P. v. Nisha