Chapter XI of the Code deals with two kinds of offences – (i) offences relating to evidence (also known as perjury) and (ii) offences against public justice. In this session we are going to discuss on the first part of the chapter and second will be discussed in next session.
The Supreme Court observed that it is a fact, though unfortunate, that a general impression is created that most of the witnesses coming in the Courts despite taking oath make false statements to suit the interests of the parties calling them. Effective and stern action is required to be taken for preventing the evil of perjury, concededly let loose by vested interest and professional litigants. The mere existence of the penal provisions to deal with perjury would be a cruel joke with the society unless the Courts stop to take an evasive recourse despite proof of the commission of the offence under Chapter XI of the IPC. If the system is to survive, effective action is the need of the time.[1]
(1) GIVING OR FABRICATING FALSE EVIDENCE
Section 191 defines the offence of giving false evidence and section 192 defines the offence of fabricating false evidence. Section 193 imposes punishment for both giving false evidence and fabricating false evidence. Sections 194 , 195 and 195A IPC, as they relate to giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure a conviction for (a) a capital offence or (b) an offence punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of seven years or more and threatening any person to give false evidence.
(1.1) MEANING OF “GIVING FALSE EVIDENCE”
Section 191 defines the term “giving false evidence”. It says, 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.
A statement is within the meaning of section 191, whether it is made verbally or otherwise. 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. A false affidavit is false evidence within the meaning of section 191 and filling of false affidavit is also covered by section 192 but is not an offence section 199.[2] The following are ingredients of giving false evidence :
(i) A person must be legally bound by an oath or any express provision of law, to state the truth, or to make a declaration upon any subject.
(ii) He must make a false statement.
(iii) He must know or believe it to be false, or not believe it to be truth.
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, 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.
(1.2) MEANING OF “FABRICATING FALSE EVIDENCE”
Section 192 says that whoever causes any circumstance to exist or makes any false entry in any book or record or electronic record, or makes any document or electronic record 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”.
The following are ingredients of “fabricating false evidence” :
(i) Causing any circumstances to exist or making any false entry in any book or record or electronic record or making any false statement in document;
(ii) doing one of the above acts with the intention that it may appear in evidence in judicial proceeding, or in a proceeding taken by law before a public servant or an arbitrator; and
(iii) such false evidence may cause authority over such proceeding to form an erroneous opinion touching any point material to the result of such proceeding.
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.
(1.3) DISTINCTION BETWEEN GIVING AND FABRICATING FALSE EVIDENCE
Distinction between ‘giving false evidence’ and ‘fabricating false evidence’ are as follows :
(1) In the case of giving false evidence, only general intention is sufficient, whereas in fabrication, particular intention is essential viz., to cause a person in a proceeding to entertain an essential opinion by causing any circumstance to exist or making any false entry in a book or making any false statement.
(2) In giving false evidence, the offence is committed by a person who is legally bound by an oath to state the truth while in fabrication; the offence is committed by a person who is not legally bound to take an oath to state truth.
(3) In giving false evidence, the false statement need not be on any material point, but in the case of fabricating false evidence in order to make out the offence it must be on a material point.
(4) In giving false evidence, the effect of evidence of the person who is to form an opinion upon the evidence in a proceeding is immaterial in false evidence, while, in fabrication, the effect of false evidence must be such as to lead the court or officer concerned to form an erroneous opinion touching any material object.
(5) In giving false evidence, there should be a proceeding judicial or non-judicial being conducted while such proceeding need not be in existence in the case of fabricating false evidence and it is enough that there is a reasonable prospect of such a proceeding, having regard to the circumstances of the case and that the evidence fabricated is intended to be used in such a proceeding.
(1.4) PUNISHMENT FOR FALSE EVIDENCE
Section 193 says that 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 up to seven years and fine. But, whoever intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence in any other case, shall be punished with imprisonment up to three years and fine.
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. ‘A’s this enquiry is a stage of a judicial proceeding. ‘A’ has given false evidence.
Under section 193 it is intentionally giving false evidence or fabricating of false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding. The second para of section 193 reduce the gravity of offence if it is used in other cases (non-judicial proceeding). This section takes into consideration the difference between a crime perpetrated in the presence of the court which is the sanctuary of truth, before whom the gravest issues are often tried, and of those before whom matters of comparatively smaller consequences come up for decision.
Intention is the essential ingredient in the constitution of the offence under Section 193. If the statement was false, and known or believed by the accused to be false, it may be presumed that in making that statement he intentionally gave false evidence. Where knowledge of falsity is proved, intention is readily presumed, mere discrepancies or contradictions in evidence due to confusion of mind or failure of memory cannot be regarded as false evidence given intentionally.
Mere contradictory statements are not an offence.- In order to make a person liable for perjury it is necessary that he should have made a statement on oath regarding the facts on which his statement was based and then deny those facts on oath on a subsequent occasion. The mere fact that a deponent has made contradictory statements at two different stages in a judicial proceeding is not by itself always sufficient to justify a prosecution for perjury under section 193 but it must be established that the deponent has intentionally given false statement in any stage of the ‘judicial proceeding’ or fabricating false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of the judicial proceeding’. It is not necessary that the false statement should be material to the case.
‘Judicial proceeding’.- Though, the term ‘Judicial proceeding’ is not defined in IPC, there are three explanations to Section 193 which includes (i) a trial before a court martial (ii) an judicial investigation directed by law, and (iii) enquiries before officers deputed by courts of justice to ascertain, for instance, on the spot, the boundaries of land. This definition may be said explanatory definition but cannot restrict its meaning in its scope. However, there is definition of ‘judicial proceeding’ under Section 2(i) of the Cr.P.C., which states that a judicial proceeding includes any proceeding in the course of which evidence is, or may be legally taken on oath.
The a person was charged for keeping his brother in unlawful custody and filed a writ petition under Article 226 with an affidavit filed by him stating that his brother associated with notorious dacoits and absconding both parties admitting that his brother not in custody of appellant therefore petition was dismissed. It was taken seriously by every court from JMFC to the Supreme Court and justified the conviction under section 193.[3]
(1.5) FALSE EVIDENCE WITH INTENT TO PROCURE CONVICTION
Sections 194 and section 195 provide for aggravated forms of giving or fabricating false evidence. The stress on these provisions is on giving or fabricating false evidence intending thereby to cause or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause any person to be convicted of an offence which is not capital by the law for the time being in force in India.
Section 194 makes punishable the act of giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of capital offence. To constitute an offence under Section 194 the accused must give false evidence intending thereby to cause some person to be convicted of a capital offence. A person who brings before a court a witness, whom he has tutored to tell a false story concerning a murder case before it, commits an offence under Section 194. For the second clause, prove further – (i) That the capital punishment was carried into effect; and (ii) That the person executed was an innocent person.
On the other hand, section 195 deals with situation where the person was convicted on giving or fabricating false evidence of an offence punishable with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term of seven years or upwards, shall be punished as a person convicted of that offence would be liable to be punished.
In a case it has been established that there was fabrication of official records by manipulating the records in large number of documents. The appellant was the investigating officer. The court had rejected the appeal by saying that the obvious purpose was to get the accused persons convicted. The purpose could have been achieved had the fabrication gone unnoticed.[4]
(1.6) THREATENING OR INDUCING ANY PERSON TO GIVE FALSE EVIDENCE
Section 195A whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause that person to give false evidence shall be punished with imprisonment up to seven years, or with fine, or with both; and if innocent person is convicted and sentenced in consequence of such false evidence, with death or imprisonment for more than seven years, the person who threatens shall be punished with the same punishment and sentence in the same manner and to the same extent such innocent person is punished and sentenced.
Section 195A was inserted by Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2005. Offence under this section required two essential ingredients, namely – (i) there must be a threat of any injury and (ii) with intent to cause that person to give false evidence.
(2) MAKING OR USING OF FALSE EVIDENCE
Section 196 to 200 deals with situations where the person has made or used false evidence, false certificate or used false declaration or he knows that it is not true is an offence under these five sections.
(2.1) USING EVIDENCE KNOWN TO BE FALSE
Section 196 says that 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.
The offence under section 196 required (i) dishonestly uses or attempts to use false evidence as true or genuine evidence; and (ii) he knows that it is false or fabricated evidence. Where, the petitioner has forged with document and used those documents in court as evidence, it was very well accepting as an offence under section 196. The court also observed that offence under section 196 would have required a complaint in writing of the Sessions Judge before cognizance could be taken.[5]
(2.2) ISSUING OR SIGNING FALSE CERTIFICATE
Section 197 says that 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.
The statement in writing which amounts to a certificate can be used as legal evidence of the facts mentioned in the certificate. The mere fact that the document is described as a certificate does not make it a certificate in the eye of law.
Omission in certificate.- The court held that, materials on record only establish fact that the accused issued certificates without specifying caste or tribe of applicants, that by itself would not lead to conclusion that certificates were issued falsely at any material point knowing or believing that certificates were false. It may amount to an omission on part of accused which may disentitle students from getting scholarships, but it would not constitute an offence under section 197 of IPC.
Caste certificate issued by the M.L.A.- The Orissa High Court held that a caste certificate issued by the M.L.A. for the purpose of enabling the students to obtain pre-matric scholarships cannot be held to be certificates within the meaning of Section 197 of IPC.[6]
Certificate of bank.- The certificate contemplated by section 197 is a certificate which is required by law to be given or signed for the purpose of being used in evidence in the course of administration of justice. The certificate given under Post Office Savings Bank Rules cannot be construed to be a certificate either under any statute or any statutory rules made thereunder.
Medical certificate.- Section 197 contemplates is that the certificate should be under some provision of law and be admissible in evidence as such certificate without further proof. A medical certificate is not per se evidence of the illness of a person certified to be ill therein. The issuing and user of a medical certificate in a criminal proceeding stating contrary to the fact that the accused was ill would render neither the accused nor the issuer of the certificate liable under Section 197 of IPC.
(2.3) USING AS TRUE A CERTIFICATE KNOWN TO BE FALSE
Section 198 says that 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.
Offences under section 197 and under section 198 are correlated. The person who issues or signs the certificate, which he knows to be false, committed an offence under section 197 and in section 198 the person dishonestly uses or attempts to use such certificate, knowing the same to be false has committed the offence.
In a case, one lady had submitted one certificate as a proof to verify the condition of employment. The government official accepting certificate as valid proof has secured her appointment in government job. She had committed offence under section 198 as she used the certificate to produce as evidence. This certificate contains at least one fact that she was working in the institution even on the day of issue of the certificate and regarding that fact the certificate could be used by her.[7]
(2.4) FALSE DECLARATION RECEIVABLE AS EVIDENCE
Section 199 says that 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 authorized 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.
The Court has observed false affidavit made before the Rent Control Officer, is no specific averment in the complaint to be maintainable under section 199. In another case, husband with the help of other persons abducted his wife and alleged police for not taking action on his complaint. Court also found him court-bird (filing cases against some relating and missing himself on the date of hearing). The writ sought in nature of mandamus and habeas corpus in matter of alleged abduction of wife of petitioner evidence showing that story of abduction was false and fabricated by petitioner with a view to harass alleged abductors observed that petitioner having habit of filing false cases petition dismissed by imposing exemplary cost upon petitioner for abusing process of Court Registrar of High Court directed to prosecute petitioner for offence under Sections 191 read with 193 and 199.
(2.5) USING AS TRUE SUCH DECLARATION KNOWING IT TO BE FALSE
Section 200 says that 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.
It was not possible to say that the Petitioner signed his name on the applications for the certified copy with intent to gain any advantage or attempted to use the same as true knowing the same to be false in any material point. The court refused to charge the accused for the commission of offence under section 200 of IPC and discharge the person.[8] ‘A’ declaration which is inadmissible merely upon the ground of some informality is a declaration within the meaning of sections 199 to 200.
(3) DESTROYING OR DISTRACTING EVIDENCE
Offences under sections 201-204 of IPC deal with destroying or distracting of the evidence. Section 201 is the most important offence under this chapter. It is used in almost all the offences, as the offender has destroyed or destructed evidences which could be used against the offence have been committed.
(3.1) CAUSING DISAPPEARANCE OF EVIDENCE OF OFFENCE
Section 201 says that 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, is an offence. The punishment for the commission of offence is as follows –
(i) If a capital offence – with imprisonment up to 7 years and fine;
(ii) If punishable with imprisonment for life – with imprisonment up to 3 years and fine;
(iii) If punishable with less than ten years’ imprisonment – with imprisonment up 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.
Assuming that the prosecution has positively proved that the death was homicidal yet from the medical evidence it is clear that it was not a natural death and consequently the death should at least be not as one of suicide. Even in the cause of suicide an offence of abetment punishable under section 306 is inherent. Therefore, even in the case of suicide there is an obligation on the person who knows or has reason to believe that such a suicidal death has occurred, to give information.[9]
In a case, trial court convicted Appellant under section 201 read with section 511 of IPC and found Appellant guilty of an attempt to cause disappearance of evidence by issuing a false certificate regarding cause of death and was accordingly sentenced to undergo one year’s R.I. The High Court dismissed the Appeal. The appeal was preferred in the Supreme Court, where the appellant got benefits of doubt, therefore, conviction and sentence awarded to Appellant were set aside by holding that no one can be fully incriminated in offence only on reasonable doubt.[10]
(3.2) INTENTIONAL OMISSION TO GIVE INFORMATION OF OFFENCE
Section 202 says that whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, intentionally omits to give any information respecting that offence which he is legally bound to give, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.
(3.3) GIVING FALSE INFORMATION RESPECTING AN OFFENCE COMMITTED
According to section 203, whoever knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, gives any information respecting that offence which he knows or believes to be false, and shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two year, or with fine, or with both.
The Madras High Court held that giving false information to process recover that he had not heard about notices for last two years and his whereabouts are not known is not a certificate and his whereabouts are not known is not a certificate and therefore section 191 to 199 of IPC are not attracted.
(3.4) DESTRUCTION OF DOCUMENT TO PREVENT ITS PRODUCTION AS EVIDENCE
Section 204 says that whoever secretes (conceals) or destroys any document or electronic record which he may be lawfully compelled to produce as evidence in a Court of Justice, or in any proceeding lawfully held before a public servant as such, or obligates or renders illegible the whole or any part of such document or electronic record with the intention of prevention the same from being produced or used as evidence before such Court or public servant as aforesaid, or after he shall have been lawfully summoned or required to produce the same for that purpose, shall be punishable with imprisonment up to two years, or with fine, or with both.
The offence under this section required following ingredients –
(i) Conceals or destroys any document which he may be lawfully compelled to produce as evidence in a Court, or obligates or renders illegible the whole or any part of such document.
(ii) with the intention of prevention the same from being produced or used as evidence before such Court or proceeding or
(iii) after he shall have been lawfully summoned or required to produce the same for that purpose.
(4) COGNIZANCE OF OFFENCE
The Cr.P.C. imposes bar on court not to take cognizance without following the procedure prescribed by section 195. Section 195(1)(b)(i) says that no court can take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 193-196, 199-200, 205-211 and 228 when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, and in relation to, any proceeding in any court except on the complaint in writing of the Court or of some Court to which that court is subordinate. Further, section 340 of the Cr.P.C. which provides the procedure required to be followed in cases mentioned in Section 195. Which says that the court has to first hold a preliminary inquiry, then record a finding that an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b) appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that court; make a complaint thereof in writing and then sent it to a Magistrate having jurisdiction to try it.
Merely because the High Court has given a direction to the police to file charge sheet against the witness, the Magistrate does not get jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 193 IPC on a police report. The Magistrate cannot take cognizance of such offence on a police report.[11]
(4.1) SUMMARY OF OFFENCES
| Sec. | Details | Penalties | Types of offence | |
| 193. | Giving or fabricating false evidence in a judicial proceeding. | Imprisonment for 7 years and fine. | Non-Cognizable | Bailable |
| Giving or fabricating false evidence in any other case. | Imprisonment for 3 years and fine. | Non-Cognizable | Bailable | |
| 194 | Giving or fabricating false evidence with intend to cause any person to be convicted of a capital offence. | Imprisonment for life, or RI for 10 years and fine. | Non-Cognizable | Non-Bailable |
| If innocent person be thereby convicted and executed. | Death/ life imprisonment/ 10 years’ RI. | Non-Cognizable | Non-Bailable | |
| 195. | Giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of an offence punishable with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment for 7 years or upwards. | The same is for the offence. | Non-Cognizable | Non-Bailable |
| 195A | Threating any person to give false evidence. | Imprisonment for 7 years/ fine/ both | Cognizable | Non-bailable |
| 196. | Using evidence known to be false. | Equal to giving false evidence. | Non-Cognizable | According as offence |
| 197. | Issuing or signing false Certificate | Equal to giving false evidence. | Non-Cognizable | Bailable |
| 198. | Using as a true certificate one known to be false in a material point. | Equal to giving false evidence. | Non-Cognizable | Bailable |
| 199. | False statement made in any declaration, which is by law receivable as evidence. | Equal to giving false evidence. | Non-Cognizable | Bailable |
| 201. | Causing disappearance of evidence of an offence committed, or giving false information touching it to screen the offender – if a capital offence. | Imprisonment for 7 years and fine. | According as the offence. | Bailable. |
| If punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for 10 years. | Imprisonment for 3 years and fine. | Non-cognizable. | Bailable. | |
| If punishable with less than 10 years imprisonment. | Imprisonment for a quarter of the longest term and/or fine. | Non-Cognizable | Bailable. | |
| 202. | International omission to give inaction of an offence by a person legally bound to inform. | Imprisonment for 6 months /fine / both. | Non-Cognizable | Bailable |
| 203. | Giving false information respecting an offence committed. | Imprisonment for 2 years /fine / both. | Non-Cognizable | Bailable |
| 204. | Secreting or destroying any, document to prevent its production as evidence. | Imprisonment for 2 years/ fine/both. | Non-Cognizable | Bailable |
* * * * *
[1] In re: Suo motu proceedings against R. Karuppan, Advocate, (2001) 5 SCC 289.
[2] Chandrapal Singh v. Maharaj Singh, AIR 1982 SC 1238.
[3] Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1959 SC 843, CriLJ 1124.
[4] Suresh Chandra Sharma v. State of M.P., AIR 2009 SC 3169 2009 : (2011) 11 SCC 173.
[5] Dr. S. Dutt v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 523.
[6] Dasarathi Sarangi v. State of Orissa, (1987) I OLR 263.
[7] Smt. Premlata v. State of Rajasthan, 1998 CriLJ 1430 : 1998 (3) WLC 102.
[8] Yellappa v. Smt. Kamalavva, 1995 CriLJ 2303, ILR 1995 Kar 987.
[9] Bhagwan Swarup v. State of Rajasthan, (1991) CriLJ 3123 (SC).
[10] Balai Chandra Biswas v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1994 SC 914 : (1994) 1 SCC 423.
[11] Arvindervir Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1998 SC 2950, (1998) 6 SCC 352.