The case, Himanshu Kumar vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., stemmed from a grim murder trial where the accused were acquitted primarily because the key prosecution witnesses—the son and wife of the deceased—turned hostile. The son, who was an eyewitness to his own father's murder and had identified the assailants in his initial statement to the police, later resiled from his statement during the trial. Similarly, the wife of the deceased also turned hostile.

This led to a collapse of the prosecution's case, resulting in the acquittal of the accused by the Trial Court, a decision that was subsequently upheld by the High Court. The appeal before the Supreme Court was filed against these concurrent acquittals.

Supreme Court's Analysis: A Rebuke to Judicial Inaction

The Supreme Court, while noting the limitations on its power to interfere in an appeal against acquittal, directed its focus towards the systemic failure that led to this miscarriage of justice. The Bench observed that both the Trial Court and the High Court were completely silent on the conduct of the hostile witnesses and failed to take any action against them.

The Court powerfully articulated its disapproval, stating:

"Courts are not helpless recorders of evidence but have a duty to analyze the evidence and arrive at the truth... Witnesses who are not speaking the truth on oath are not to be let off. The Trial Courts and the High Courts should be alive to their duties and take suo motu action..."

The judgment serves as a powerful reminder that the judiciary's role is not passive. When witnesses blatantly lie under oath, they undermine the very foundation of the justice delivery system. The Court's inaction in such scenarios, the Bench noted, not only allows the guilty to walk free but also encourages the practice of perjury, making a mockery of the trial process.

The Legal Framework for Prosecuting False Evidence

The Supreme Court's directive is firmly rooted in the procedural law that empowers courts to take immediate cognizance of perjury.

Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC):
The power invoked by the Supreme Court is primarily found in Section 344 of the CrPC. This section provides for a summary procedure for trial for giving false evidence. It states that if a court, at the time of delivering judgment, is of the opinion that a witness has knowingly given false evidence with the intention that it be used in the proceeding, it may, after giving the witness a reasonable opportunity to be heard, try them summarily and sentence them to imprisonment for a term up to three months, or a fine up to five hundred rupees, or both.
Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS):
This crucial power has been retained and strengthened under the new legal framework. The corresponding provision is Section 383 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Section 383(1), BNSS: It empowers a Court of Session or a Magistrate of the First Class, when delivering a judgment or final order, to take cognizance of the offense if it is of the opinion that a witness has "knowingly or wilfully given false evidence or had fabricated false evidence".
Procedure: After giving the witness a reasonable opportunity to show cause, the court can summarily try them and sentence them to imprisonment for a term up to three months, or a fine up to one thousand rupees, or with both.

This provision in the BNSS, like its predecessor, allows the court to act swiftly and decisively against perjury without having to go through a separate, lengthy trial process, thereby serving as an immediate deterrent.

Implications and The Way Forward

The Supreme Court's judgment in Himanshu Kumar is more than just an observation; it is a call to action for the trial judiciary. The key implications are:

Curbing the Hostile Witness Phenomenon: The "hostile witness" is one of the biggest challenges in securing convictions in India. By encouraging trial courts to use powers under Section 383 of the BNSS, the Supreme Court aims to create a deterrent effect, making witnesses think twice before resiling from their statements under inducement or threat.
Upholding the Sanctity of Oath: An oath administered in court is a solemn promise to tell the truth. Allowing witnesses to lie with impunity devalues this oath. Proactive prosecution for perjury reinforces the seriousness of court proceedings.
Preventing Miscarriage of Justice: As this case demonstrates, hostile witnesses directly lead to the acquittal of potentially guilty individuals. Holding these witnesses accountable is essential for ensuring that justice is served.
Empowering Trial Judges: The judgment empowers trial judges to move beyond being mere umpires and to actively safeguard the integrity of the trial. It reminds them that they possess the necessary legal tools to combat perjury and should not hesitate to use them.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court has sent an unequivocal message: the administration of criminal justice cannot be held hostage by untruthful witnesses. Trial courts must assume a proactive role and utilize the summary powers vested in them by Section 383 of the BNSS to ensure that the stream of justice remains pure and unpolluted.