Offences - Perjury -
False Affidavits, Statements, False Pleadings etc
IPC
– Section 191. Giving false evidence Whoever,
being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the
truth, or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject, makes any
statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or
does not believe to be true, is said to give false evidence.
Explanation 1- A statement is within the meaning of this
section, whether it is made verbally or otherwise.
Explanation 2- A false statement as to the belief of
the person attesting is within the meaning of this section, and a person may be
guilty of giving false evidence by stating that he believes a thing which he
does not believe, as well as by stating that he knows a thing which he does not
know.
Illustrations
(a)
A, in support of a just claim which B has against Z for one thousand rupees,
falsely swears on a trial that he heard Z admit the justice of B's claim. A has
given false evidence.
(b)
A, being bound by an oath to state the truth, states that he believes a certain
signature to be the handwriting of Z, when he does not believe it to be the
handwriting of Z. Here A states that which he knows to be false, and therefore
gives false evidence.
(c)
A, knowing the general character of Z's handwriting, states that he believes a
certain signature to be the handwriting of Z; A in good faith believing it to
be so. Here A's statement is merely as to his belief, and is true as to his
belief, and therefore, although the signature may not be the handwriting of Z,
A has not given false evidence.
(d)
A, being bound by an oath to state the truth, states that he knows that Z was
at a particular place on a particular day, not knowing anything upon the
subject. A gives false evidence whether Z was at that place on the day named or
not.
(e)
A, an interpreter or translator, gives or certifies as a true interpretation or
translation of a statement or document which he is bound by oath to interpret or
translate truly, that which is not and which he does not believe to be a true
interpretation or translation. A has given false evidence.
IPC – Section 192. Fabricating false evidence Whoever causes any
circumstance to exist or makes any false entry in any book or record, or makes
any document containing a false statement, intending that such circumstance,
false entry or false statement may appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding,
or in a proceeding taken by law before a public servant as such, or before an
arbitrator, and that such circumstance, false entry or false statement, so
appearing in evidence, may cause any person who in such proceeding is to form
an opinion upon the evidence, to entertain an erroneous opinion touching any
point material to the result of such proceeding, is said "to fabricate
false evidence".
Illustrations
(a) A, puts jewels into a box
belonging to Z, with the intention that they may be found in that box, and that
this circumstance may cause Z to be convicted of theft. A has fabricated false
evidence.
(b) A makes a false entry in his
shop-book for the purpose of using it as corroborative evidence in a Court of
Justice. A has fabricated false evidence.
(c) A, with the intention of
causing Z to be convicted of a criminal conspiracy, writes a letter in
imitation of Z's handwriting, purporting to be addressed to an accomplice in
such criminal conspiracy, and puts the letter in a place which he knows that
the officers of the Police are likely to search. A has fabricated false
evidence.
IPC – Section 193. Punishment for false evidence: Whoever
intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or
fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a
judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine,
and whoever intentionally gives
or fabricates false evidence in any other case, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years,
and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation 1- A trial before a Court-martial; 101[***] is a
judicial proceeding.
Explanation 2- An investigation directed by law preliminary to a
proceeding before a Court of Justice, is a stage of a judicial proceeding,
though that investigation may not take place before a Court of Justice.
Illustration
A, in an enquiry before a
Magistrate for the purpose of ascertaining whether Z ought to be committed for
trial, makes on oath a statement which he knows to be false. As this enquiry is
a state of a judicial proceeding, A has given false evidence.
Explanation 3- An investigation directed by a Court of Justice
according to law, and conducted under the authority of a Court of Justice, is a
state of a judicial proceeding, though that investigation may not take place
before a Court of Justice.
Illustration
A, in any enquiry before an
officer deputed by a Court of Justice to ascertain on the spot the boundaries
of land, makes on oath a statement which he knows to be false. As this enquiry
is a stage of a judicial proceeding. A has given false evidence.
IPC – Section 196. Using evidence known to be false: Whoever
corruptly uses or attempts to use as true or genuine evidence any evidence
which he knows to be false or fabricated, shall be punished in the same manner
as if he gave or fabricated false evidence.
IPC – Section 197. Issuing or signing false certificate: Whoever
issues or signs any certificate required by law to be given or signed, or
relating to any fact of which such certificate is by law admissible in
evidence, knowing or believing that such certificate is false in any material
point, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence.
IPC – Section 198. Using as true a certificate known to be false:
Whoever corruptly uses or attempts to use any such certificate as a true
certificate, knowing the same to be false in any material point, shall be
punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence.
IPC – Section 199. False statement made in declaration which is by law
receivable as evidence: Whoever, in any declaration made or subscribed by
him, which declaration any Court of Justice, or any public servant or other
person, is bound or authorised by law to receive as evidence of any fact, makes
any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false
or does not believe to be true, touching any point material to the object for
which the declaration is made or used, shall be punished in the same manner as
if he gave false evidence.
IPC – Section 200. Using as true such declaration knowing it to be
false: Whoever corruptly uses or attempts to use as true any such
declaration, knowing the same to be false in any material point, shall be
punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence.
Explanation- A declaration which is inadmissible merely upon the
ground of some informality, is a declaration within the meaning of sections 199
to 200.
IPC – Section 201. Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or
giving false information to screen offender: Whoever, knowing or having
reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of
the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening
the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any
information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false; if a
capital offence- shall,
if the offence which he knows or
believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years,
and shall also be liable to fine;
if punishable with imprisonment
for life- and if the offence is punishable with 104[imprisonment for life], or
with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years,
and shall also be liable to fine;
if punishable with less than ten
years' imprisonment- and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any
term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the
description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one
-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence,
or with fine, or with both.
Illustration
A, knowing that B has murdered Z,
assists B to hide the body with the intention of screening B from punishment. A
is liable to imprisonment of either description for seven years, and also to
fine.
***** Perjury – Chajooram versus Radhesham AIR 1971 SC
1367.
Section 191 of Indian Penal Code declares that when a
person, who is under legal obligation, either on oath or under any provision of
law, to state the truth, to declare upon any subject, knowingly makes false
statement, the statement which he believes that it is false or he believes that
it is not true, commits the offence under this section.
The punishment for this offence is imprisonment which may
extend to Seven years, and will also be fined.
Case Law: Offences relating to making false statement in
the sworn Affidavits comes within the purview of this section.
Kori Gope versus Manmohan Das, AIR 1928 Pat 161 : 29 CrLJ
111 : 106 IC 703
Ranjit Singh versus State of PEPSU ,
AIR 1959 SC 843 : 1959 CrLJ 1124
Written statements and applications: A person filing a
written statement is bound by law to state the truth and if he makes a
statement which is false to his knowledge or belief, or which he believes not
to be true, he is guilty of this offence. Mehrban Singh (1884) 6 All 626, Padam
Singh, (1930) 52 All 856.
Section 196 of Indian Penal Code declares that When a
person give or attempt to give any evidence as true or genuine evidence,
knowing that the evidence he is giving is false or fabricated, to obstruct in
the course of justice, commits the offence under this section.
The punishment for this offence is imprisonment which may
extend to Seven years, and will also be fined.
Section 199 of Indian Penal Code declares that when a
person, voluntarily makes a declaration to a Court or to any public Servant,
who are bound to take such declaration as evidence, and the person knowingly
makes false statement in such declaration, the statement which he believed it
to be false or he believed it to be not true. Also, the false statement so made
must touch a point material to the object of such declaration, commits the
offence under this section.
The punishment for this offence is imprisonment which may
extend to Seven years, and will also be fined.
Case Law: False Affidavit: M S Jaggi 1983 CrLJ 1527 (Ori)
Deputy GM Inter State Bus Terminal versus Smt Sudarshan
Kumari, 1997 CrLJ 1931 (SC) : AIR 1997 SC 1902 : 1997 (3) SCC 496 : Gadhi
versus Krishnaraja, 2000 CrLJ 1590 (Mad)
Baddu Khan versus Emperor, AIR 1928 All 182 : 29 CrLJ 336
Section 181 of Indian Penal Code declares that- when a
person, who is under legal obligation, knowingly make any statement, on Oath,
or by affirmation, before a Public Servant, statement which he knew that it is
false or statement which he believes that it is not true, and when he is bound
to state the truth, commits the offence under this section.
The punishment for this offence is imprisonment which may
extend to three years, and will also be fined.
Sections 191, 193, 107, 40, 43 of IPC – perjury – (2011) 12
SCC 588
Section 340 / 195 of CrPC – merely because some statements
were false does not amount to perjury – (2011) 12 SCC 640.
Section 192 – False evidence – false statement – 2011 (1)
AIR Bom R 111 – Paras 19, 28 to 36.
Section 193, 199 read with 195 of CrPC – false evidence –
Prabhakar Ramchandra versus State of Maharashtra – 2010 (3) Bom CR (Cri) 154
Section 199 – Maharashtra State
False statement in quasi judicial proceedings – (2012) 2
SCC 60 – Paras 10 to 14
PERJURY Section 191 to 199 of IPC
1860: Judgments punishing the alleged offender
1974 LW (Cr) 39
2001 CrLJ J 2611 (SC)
AIR 1930 All 490, 492
1998 CrLJ 4956 (Kant)
AIR 1959 SC 843, 846
(2001) 1 CCR 94 (Kant) (DB)
AIR 1936 Mad 350, 361
Bhagirath Lal versus Emperor AIR 1934 All 1017, 1018
AIR 1922 Bom 99
AIR 1935 Cal 304, 305
AIR 1929 All 936
AIR 1933 All 318
81 CWN 797, 799
Judgments protecting the innocent,
made accused of giving “false evidence”
Where the statement complained of
are slightly discrepant owing to inaccuracies of mind and are not deliberately
false.
Chandra Mohan Nanda versus Emperor
AIR 1918 Cal 106: (1918) 19 CriLJ 230
Emperor versus Bankatram Lachhiram
(1904) 1 CriLJ 390: ILR 28 Bom 533
Umraolal versus State
AIR 1954 All 424: 1954 CriLJ 860
INTENTION IS THE ESSENCE OF THE OFFENCE
Shiv Raman Gaur versus Madan Mohan Kanda
1990 CriLJ 1033 (P&H)
Abdul Mutlab versus Emperor
(1947) 48 CriLJ 632: 230 IC 412
Emperor versus PO Shin
(1907) 6 CriLJ 283 (Low Bur)
Mohd Siddiq versus Emperor
(1907) 6 CriLJ 162: 11 CWN 911
Rattan Singh versus Crown
(1911) 12 CriLJ 265: 1911 Pun LR 312
Asgarali
AIR 1942 Nag 80: 43 CriLJ 649: ILR 1942 Nag 695
1982 All Cri Rul 9
The accused must also know or
believe what he has stated or declared is false.
D Jothi versus K P Kandasamy
2000 CrLJ 292 (Mad)
Adikanda Swain versus King Emperor
AIR 1947 Pat 251: 47 CriLJ 317
Statements made in reckless and
haphazard manner though untrue in fact do not constitute the offence when the
person making them immediately admits the mistake and correct them.
Aiyasami Iyer versus Aiyasami Iyer
AIR 1918 Mad 627: 33 MLJ 545: 18 CriLJ 636
Emperor versus Ganeshji
(1905) 2 CriLJ 100 (All)
Qutubuddin versus Emperor
AIR 1937 Pat 211: 38 CriLJ 216
Emperor versus Muhammed Ishaq
AIR 1914 All 170: (1914) 15 CriLJ 579
Queen Empress versus Mehrban Singh
(1884) 6 All 626
Intention is a question of fact to
be decided in each case.
State versus Dhanna Sewa
AIR 1959 MP 35,36
1998 CrLJ 4738
Mens rea is an essential ingredient
of the offence and it is the intention which creates the offence.
Maheshchandra Dhupi versus Emperor
AIR 1940 Cal 449
The explanation furnished by the
offender has also to be given due consideration.
Jamma Prasad versus State of Rajasthan
(1991) 3 Crimes 65
If the false statement have been
made from motives not in themselves evil, that circumstance caqn be taken into
account when awarding punishment.
Dipomal Murjimal versus Emperor
AIR 1942 Sind 98, 99
“LOCUS PAENITENTIAE” MEANS A CHANCE OF REPENTANCE.
Emperor versus Ganga Sahal
1903 All WN 68
The fact that the person making a
wrong statement applied for withdrawal of it as soon as he found that the
statement was wrong is a factor in his favour. A prosecution for perjury is
hardly desirable in such a case.
Liaqat Hussain Vinay Prakash
AIR 1946 All 156, 158
1966 CrLJ 834, 836
The ingredients of the offence are
to be established at the trial and not at the stage when cognizance is taken .
M S Jaggi versus
Registrar HC
1983 CrLJ 1527
Arun Kumar Agarwal versus Radha Arun
(2001) CrLJ (Kant) 3561 (DB)
(2002) 1 CCR 192 (Kant)
Touching any point material to the
object for which the declaration has been made.
Jotishchandra versus State of Bihar
AIR 1969 SC 7, 8
Kamb pani samal versus Munsif
(1919) 47 Cut LT 19 (SN)
R versus Vedamuthu 1 Weir 159
Darshan Singh versus Jayanti Prasad Joshi
1963 All LJ 404
Narain Singh versus Emperor
AIR 1948 All 287
Jadu Nandan Singh versus Emperor
ILR 37 Cal 250
Gopaldas Khetriya versus Jnandra Nath Dawn
40 Cri LJ 450 : AIR 1938 Cal 677
K Karunakaran versus T V Eachara Warrier
(1978) 1 SCC 18
R V Bhasin versus State
1987 Cri LJ 1799 (Bom)
Vittappan versus State
1987 Cri LJ 1994 (Ker)
Bibhuti Bhushan Basu versus Corporation of Calcutta
1982 Cri LJ 909 (Cal )
Kuria Kose versus State of Kerala
1995 Cri LJ 175 at 1754 (Ker)
Syed Assadullah Kazmi versus Additional Magistrate
(1988) 3 Crimes 330 (332,333)
Vimala versus Ranjini Murugan
(1988) 2 Crimes 124, 131 (Mad)
Veerappa Shivappa versus Krishna Triyambak
1977 CrLJ 1367 (Kant)
Pir Qadie Baksh Shah
(1924) 6 Lah 34, 39
Pandu Namaji Govande
18 CrLJ 480: 19 Bom LR 61
Mohammed Khan versus Gourishankar Misra
AIR 1954 Ori 193, 194
Rashbehari Roy versus Emperor
AIR 1930 Cal 639
AIR 1960 SC 571, 574
Makanji Anandji 1 CrLJ 486, 487
AIR 1916 Cal 553
1980 Cr LR (MP HCN) 91, 93
(1992) 3 JT (SC0 129
AIR 1967 SC 68
(1993) 1 Crimes 921 (P&H)
AIR 1964 SC 725, 728
Section 193 IPC and 344 IPC
M S Sheriff v The State of Madras and Ors AIR 1954 SC 397
No comments:
Post a Comment