1. To prove perjury there has to be direct evidence of it irrespective of whether it is your wife, her relatives or cops. Without a perusal of 161 statement and the evidence it is not possible to state what are the prospects. The offence of perjury is independent of mens rea. You do not have to prove mens rea as a condition precedent to prove perjury.

2. If you file a suit for damages on account of malicious prosecution then the proceedings can be stayed if the decision is challenged in the higher courts through the corrective statutory process. A delay of a few days or even months is usually condoned unhesitatingly by the courts.

3. Failure to prove perjury would in turn make you liable to prosecution for defamation.

1) since you have been acquitted in false 498A case move on in life

2) don't file any case against police officers and witnesses

3) police would file an appeal if you drag them to court and delay in filing appeal condoned

1. File a Writ Petition seeking action against the police officers who had illegally arranged for the statements of the witnesses which the witnesses themselves claimed to be false.

2. The witnesses have deposed that they have not given those statements as submitted by the police claiming to be their statements and such deposition have gone in your favour. They can not be prosecuted in ay way now.

3. Police shall have to prove its allegations with evidence. If they claim that you have threatened their witnesses, it goes against them since it shows that the illegal act of threatening the witnesses was carried by you as alleged by the police which the police could not stop.

the problem here is police are over burdened

2) they mechanically file charge sheet without carrying out detailed investigations

3) it is not in your interest to antagonize the police officials

4) you can seek prosecution of witnesses who have given false evidence on oath

Police does not have to prove their innocence. They have to prove their innocence. Innocence has to be proved having regard to the degree of crime. Section 340 does not come into application merely for the witness turning hostile. Even if an offence is not made out against the cops and witnesses you are free to seek damages from them, As I said before, consult a lawyer with complete set of documents.

1. Court acts as per the evidence and arguments and not as per feelings. The witnesses have deposed against the submissions made by the police affirming that that have not given any statements to the police which the police has claimed to have received from them.

2. The witnesses can not be accused at all in the instant case. The police is in the jam now and file the writ Petition against the police as suggested in my earlier post.

3. There is no need for any further investigation to be conducted to prove that police acted illegally. it is already proved. File the writ Petition immediately against the police.

1: At this point, how can I bring the police officers and all the false witnesses to justice and convict them ? There is not much evidence to prove their guilty mind (mens rea). What is the best approach ?

You cannot take any action agaisnt the witnesses because they have clearly deposed before the court that they do not know anything about it hence no case is maintainable agaisnt them as per provisions of law.

You can file a case agaisnt police for malicious prosecution .

QUESTION 2: Would I be susceptible for potential backlash from the false witnesses in form of false charge or defamation etc for instituting criminal case against them ? (Please note that they are high rollers and can bear heavy influence on police). From a legal perspective (or judge's point of view), those witnesses are innocent and have been listed as witnesses without their knowledge.

As per the records the witnesses are innocent and have been listed as witnesses without their knowledge, hence no legal action agaisnt them is maintainable, therefore if you initiate any legal action agaisnt them, it may backfire agaisnt you and you will find tough time to solve this additional crisis.

Once I file case against the offenders for malicious prosecution etc, is it possible that the police could go for appeal and come up with new allegation that I have threatened the witnesses and hence the witnesses did not open their mouth in the court ? (It is past the 90 day limitation period. But a local advocate alluded that the police are usually condoned for delay in appeal and be allowed to appeal beyond the limitation period).

The police preferring an appeal against the acquittal shall be decided by their higher authorities only and not by the local police. The malicious prosecution case agaisnt the local police will not be a matter of their consideration especially in view of preferring an appeal. The instigation to prefer an appeal should come from the side of the defacto complainant side only.

n this very case, either the police or the witnesses or both are surely guilty. It is not a case where the offenders are anonymous. All the suspects are in the forefront. All of them can't be innocent. Once it is proven that it is a false case, does the burden of proof not shift on to the police to prove their innocence ? If they can't prove their innocence, should they not be held responsible for their act ? Apart from witness statements, there is not an iota of evidence they produced. If the police solely relied on witness testimony, and when it is proven false, the prosecution has not even put in application U/s 340 against the witnesses who turned hostile.

It just does not add up. Is it not abuse of power by police officers ? I am a party / victim. I am not an investigating agency to investigate into and bring forth the evidence. In such a case, can the court order a special investigating agency to investigate into the malicious prosecution ?

You should understand the concept of the judgment delivered to you.

The curt has acquitted you and not dismissed the case.

The acquittal is for the reason that the prosecution could not prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.

This implies that there is prima facie a case that was cognizable and maintainable for trial.

Therefore you should understand the underlying fact that the court has not given you a clean chit nor it has mentioned that you are innocent of the offences charged on you.

The court has acquitted you for the reason that the prosecution did not prove the offences beyond reasonable doubt.

The hostile attitude of the witnesses before trial court is part of the proceedings and the circumstances do not favor you in any manner for the opinion you have on them t initiate action agaisnt them.

Your sentimental or emotional feelings are totally different to that of law or the facts. . .

Thus you may think not to venture into such ideas for the reasons that it may backfire and you will be in more trouble due to this.