Delay in perjury proceedings is delay in justice

Evidence is a form of proof that is legally presented at trial of a case and it is intended to convince the judge or jury of alleged material facts of the case.

Evidence is any statement/document required or permitted by the court and which is presented by the instruction of the court. According to the Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, the evidence is categorized into two forms;

• Oral
• Documentary Evidence

A statement or documentary evidence produced in the court when found to be false or is believed not to be true is false evidence.

False Evidence or Perjury

The Section 191 of the Indian Penal Code states that providing false evidence means a person bound by oath or express provision of law, to tell the truth, gives a false statement or a statement that he doesn’t believe to be true or believes to be false. The false statement given by a person can be in written or otherwise (oral or indicative) form.

Section 191 is also known as Perjury under English Perjury Act 1911.

If a person gives a willful false statement or documents in the court as a part of his evidence in any form allowed by the law even after knowing that it is false or not true, it is a form of offence called ‘Perjury’ in legal terminology. In simple words, Perjury can be defined as an offence of lying when you are under oath. However, if the person gives a false statement out of insufficient information or on assumption or due to any other reason but with no intention to tell a lie, he cannot be held liable under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code.

Several cases of Perjury come to light when the courts determine such issues which are like blackspots for the judicial system of India. The reason is that our judicial system is so flexible with the motive that an innocent person hasn’t be punished though an accused may escape.

Fabricating False Evidence

Section 192 of the Indian Penal Code defines fabricating false evidence. Any individual causing any circumstances to exist or makes any false entry in any book of record, electronic record or prepare any document with false statement or entry, with an intention that such documents with false entries and/or statement may be needed to appear as an evidence in a judicial proceeding, or in a legal proceedings before a public servant 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 to form is to form an opinion upon an evidence, in order to entertain an erroneous proceeding touching any point material to the result of such proceeding, is called fabrication of false evidence.

What is the Punishment for False Evidence?

A person giving false statement/evidence before the court or during legal proceedings, can be imprisoned for up to 7 years and also fine, whereas if a person gives false evidence outside the court, he can get imprisonment for up to 3 years and/or fine. Giving false evidence is a non-cognizable offence which means such a person cannot be arrested by the police without an arrest warrant. And it is a type of bailable offence, it means he/she can seek bail from the court. In other words, he can claim a bail as a matter of right. Though it is a non-compoundable in nature which means the person who has given false evidence against a person cannot compromise with him and the case can’t be closed.

Current Scenario on Perjury

Making false statements deliberately which are related to the case and that too under oath leads to crime of perjury. It can hit at the root of the judicial system itself and resulting into disturbance of the accuracy of the findings recorded by the court and therefore, may cause changes in the decision of the court. It may put a ‘Big Question Mark’ on the reliability and authenticity of the Indian Judicial System. That’s why, any person found guilty of causing perjury has to dealt with serious charges as it is necessary not only for the working of the court but also for the benefit of the public at great extent.

Several courts have termed perjury as a type of crime that blurs the lines between substantive and procedural law and causing a challenge to the judicial administration system. It acts as an obstruction to the justice.

Highlighted Cases of Perjury

In one of the highlighted cases of Perjury, Karnataka High Court Justice Krishna S Dixit allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order highlighting the importance of perjury applications to be considered at the earliest. In the said case, the Petitioner and respondent are an estranged couple and both are medical practitioners apparently and active in the same profession. The Petitioner (husband) has filed a suit seeking a decree for annulment of marriage which stands pending. On the other hand, the respondent (wife) also filed an application for seeking Rs 1,00,000 as monthly maintenance and for a lump sum of Rs 75,000 as litigation expenses which were rejected.

Afterward, the petitioner filed an application under Section 151 of CPC, 1908 r/w Section 301 CrPC seeking Court to initiate proceedings for the offence of perjury contending that the respondent had falsely stated to be unemployed and thus claimed to have no any source of income. The Court thereby rejected the application, aggrieved by this, the husband filed writ petition.

In the matter, the Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent wife supported the application for maintenance in her affidavit had falsely stated as to her unemployment and lack of income. However, the counsel for the respondent submitted that a complaint filed by the respondent-wife in relation to petitioner allegedly producing Income Tax Returns and other documents of the respondent, though the matter is still under investigation by the police so the question of perjury is still premature. In the case of alleging perjury, whether action should be taken or not, is a matter left to the discretion of the Court concerned before whom the substantive proceedings are pending and therefore, discretionary orders of such kind can’t be subjected to a deeper scrutiny in writ jurisdiction.