Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has on August 13, 2024 said that mere suspicion or inaccurate statements, or a denial simpliciter without any mala fide intention do not attract the offence of perjury.

A bench of Justices B R Gavai, Sanjay Karol and K V Vishwanathan set aside a Uttarakhand High Court's order of October 1, 2022 , which directed initiation of proceedings against James Kunjwal. The HC had noted that Kunjwal had intentionally filed a false affidavit during the proceedings related to cancellation of his bail in a rape case lodged on false promise of marriage.

"The statement made by the appellant, that has been deemed to be befitting the offence of giving false evidence before the court, which is known commonly as perjury, was more in the nature of denial of the statements made in the affidavits of the complainant herein," the bench said.

After the High Court's order, a complaint under Section 193 of the IPC was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital.

Before the top court, the appellant contended mere denial of the averments in the pleadings would not constitute the offence of perjury. Further, a court is not “bound” to make a complaint under Section 195(1)(b), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, unless it is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice to do so, his counsel said.

The respondent-complainant contended the appellant has misrepresented and twisted certain facts, for instance, that he continued to have relations with her despite his marriage being fixed with someone else; that he had forced the complainant to terminate her pregnancy etc. 

The court examined the issue whether the contents of the affidavit filed before the High Court, constituted an offence under Section 193 (punishment for false evidence) IPC, as defined in Section 191 (giving false evidence) IPC.

It noted Section 195(b)(1) of CrPC provided that no court should take cognisance of an offence committed under Sections 193 to 196, 199, 200, 205-211; except on the complaint in writing of the court or by an officer of the court, duly authorised. Section 340 mentioned the procedure in respect of the prosecution as delineated under Section 195. 

Having cited various judicial pronouncements, the bench culled out the principles:

(i) The court should be of the prima facie opinion that there exists sufficient and reasonable ground to initiate proceedings against the person who has allegedly made a false statement(s);

(ii) Such proceedings should be initiated when doing the same is “expedient in the interests of justice to punish the delinquent” and not merely because of inaccuracy in statements that may be innocent/immaterial;

(iii) There should be “deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance”;

(iv) The court should be satisfied that there is a reasonable foundation for the charge, with distinct evidence and not mere suspicion;

(v) Proceedings should be initiated in exceptional circumstances, for instance, when a party has perjured themselves to beneficial orders from the court.

The court said the prosecution in such cases would be unjust if these conditions are not met.

In the case, the bench opined it cannot be disputed that the statements made in the affidavit were only to state his version of events and/or deny the version put forth by the complainant. 

The court said a denial simpliciter cannot meet the threshold, particularly when no malafide intention/deliberate attempt can be understood from the statement made by the appellant in the affidavit. 

Mere suspicion or inaccurate statements do not attract the offence under the Section, it emphasised.

"We are also of the firm opinion that such statements do not make it expedient in the interest of justice, nor constitute exceptional circumstances in which such Sections may be invoked. Given that these proceedings would constitute an offence, independent of the one for which the appellant is already facing trial, it cannot be unequivocally held that there was deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance," the bench said.

The court also noted the woman respondent in her counter affidavit filed here made no particular allegation nor did she provide any of the material that was allegedly placed before the competent prosecuting authorities or the court. 

She only alleged untruth on the part of the appellant, stating that the court was correct in initiating proceedings against him for making the false statement. She further made certain statements that fall outside the scope of the present adjudication and pertained to the trial of the main offence pending before the court of competent jurisdiction, the court pointed out.

The court, accordingly, allowed the appeal and quashed the proceedings.