Those cribbing about the ‘harsh’ punishment to Salman Khan forget that not only has he been spared the full sentence, he has also not been penalised for perversion of justice, which could have cost him dear elsewhere
Now that the brouhaha over the Salman Khan affair has subsided, it’s time for us to introspect. One particular dimension has been overlooked in most of the television debates and newspaper analysis that has followed the pronouncement of the judgement. In some ways, this is surprising because many of those who participated in the debates or wrote articles on the topic happened to be eminent jurists.
For those who have had legal training in England, the offence ‘perverting the course of justice’ will be familiar. This writer recalls his instructor at the lincoln’s Inn explaining the crime which, if proven, could carry a maximum sentence of a lifetime incarceration.
Apart from England and Wales, New Zealand, Australia and Canada also have statutory provisions for determination of this crime and corresponding penalties (although unlike England and Wales, the maximum punishment available is not a life sentence).
There have been several noteworthy trials where powerful celebrities have been tried, convicted, and made to serve the sentence. The name Jeffrey Archer will be familiar to any English language bibliophile anywhere in the world, including in this country.
About three decades ago, a popular tabloid in the country reported that Archer was involved in paying off a prostitute to obtain her silence after having a dalliance. Archer sued the tabloid and produced an alibi for the period he was supposed to have been paying off the lady in question. It was a trial that attracted widespread attention internationally.
The presiding judge, Justice Caulfied, was clearly an Archer fan. In his instruction to the jury, he used the following expressions: “Remember Mary Archer (Archer’s scientist wife) in the witness-box. Your vision of her probably will never disappear. Has she eleganceIJ Has she fragranceIJ Would she have, without the strain of this trial, radianceIJ How would she appealIJ Has she had a happy married lifeIJ Has she been able to enjoy, rather than endure, her husband JeffreyIJ Is he in need of cold, unloving, rubber-insulated sex in a seedy hotel round about quarter to one on a Tuesday morning after an evening at the CapriceIJ”
Many years later, evidence was presented that Archer had fabricated the evidence in establishing an alibi. Despite his multi-millionaire status and a worldwide fan following, he was indicted and tried for the crime of perverting the course of justice and, in addition to being asked to return the money he had been awarded in the civil trial with compensatory damages, sentenced to four years of incarceration.
By and large, people accepted that he had committed an offence and the sentence was merited. And if the reports are to be believed, Archer donated huge sums towards philanthropy. The fact that it counted for less than one per cent of his total income is another matter!
This incidence conjures up a feeling of déjà vu when we observe our newspaper headlines these days. A hugely popular film star has been convicted and sentenced for five years for a number of offences, including injudiciously handling his automobile in a state of inebriation, driving an automobile without a driving permit, and not reporting the crime to the police in time.
But there was another dimension which his supporters (some of whom are odiously misguided!) have not considered while offering him support and protesting vociferously at the supposed severity of the sentence. The judge in his 240-page order made some revealing observations. According to him, the alibi produced by the popular actor was patently bogus. The judge described him as a “got-up witness” and blamed his employer, the actor’s father.
In other words, had the provision for perversion of justice existed, the actor could well have attracted a life sentence. The course of justice perverted in Archer’s case involved a civil matter while the criminal contours were clearly visible in this case, which by definition would have resulted in a more severe penalty.
The actor, therefore, should count himself fortunate in some ways that the provision does not exist in India, plus he escaped the maximum sentence for this offence which happens to be 10 years.
It is no point pleading that others have managed to scrape through with milder strictures for similar infractions. The time has come for us to initiate a debate on the institution of a crime within our statute for perversion of the course of justice in India.
Not just in this case, but massaging and manipulating of evidence by the high and mighty has acquired epidemic proportions in India (think of the cases of Jessica lal, Priyadarshini Mattoo and Nitish Katara). Perhaps that might help curtail this menace and serve to instill faith in our criminal justice system, which seems to be eroding fast.