Source:   Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court recently quashed perjury proceedings against a litigant, establishing guidelines for such actions under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case involved a false affidavit in a bail cancellation matter. The ruling clarifies the standards needed to prove perjury, overturning the Uttarakhand High Court's directive. 

• Justice BR Gavai, Justices Sanjay Karol, and KV Viswanathan held in the matter of James kunjwal v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr. 

What was the Background of James kunjwal v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr? 

• James Kunjwal (the Appellant) was accused in FIR No. 109 of 2021 under Sections 376 & 504 of the Indian Penal Code,1860. 
• The FIR was filed by a complainant referred to as 'X', alleging that James Kunjwal had established relations with her on the false promise of marriage. 
• James Kunjwal initially applied for bail before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nainital, which was rejected. 
• He then appealed to the High Court of Uttarakhand, which granted him bail on 8th June, 2021. 
• The complainant subsequently filed an application (No. 24/2022) seeking cancellation of James Kunjwal's bail. 
• In the bail cancellation application, the complainant alleged that James Kunjwal was pressuring her to settle the case, sending her obscene messages, and abusing her and her family. 
• The complainant claimed she had filed a police complaint about James Kunjwal's behavior on 24th July, 2022. 
• In response to the allegations, James Kunjwal filed an affidavit denying the complainant's claims and providing his own version of events. 
• The High Court dismissed the bail cancellation application but took issue with perceived contradictions between the affidavits filed by James Kunjwal and the complainant. 
• The High Court subsequently directed the Registrar (Judicial) to file a complaint against James Kunjwal for allegedly filing a false affidavit, leading to a case under Section 193 of the IPC. 
• James Kunjwal then appealed this decision to file a perjury case against him to the Supreme Court of India. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court examined whether the contents of the affidavit filed by James Kunjwal before the High Court constituted an offence under Section 193 IPC, as defined in Section 191 IPC. 
• The Court referred to several precedents to establish the criteria for initiating proceedings under Section 193 IPC. 
• The Court observed that mere denial of statements made in the complainant's affidavits does not meet the threshold for perjury. 
• It was noted that no malafide intention or deliberate attempt could be understood from James Kunjwal's statements in his affidavit. 
• The Court emphasized that mere suspicion or inaccurate statements do not attract the offence under Section 193 IPC. 
• The Supreme Court opined that James Kunjwal's statements did not make it expedient in the interest of justice to invoke Section 193 IPC. 
• The Court found that the circumstances did not constitute exceptional grounds warranting the invocation of perjury proceedings. 
• It was observed that at least three of the established criteria for justifying perjury proceedings appeared to be unmet in this case. 
• The Court noted that the respondent's counter-affidavit before the Supreme Court did not provide any specific allegations or material that was allegedly placed before the competent prosecuting authorities or the Court. 
• The Supreme Court concluded that prosecution for perjury in this case would be unjust based on the available facts and circumstances. 

What is Section 227 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ? 

• Section 227 deals with offense of giving false evidence (earlier it was given under Section 191 of the Indian Penal Code,1872 ) 
• It applies to a person who is legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth. 
• It also applies to a person bound by law to declare on any subject. 
• The offence occurs when such a person makes any statement which is false. 
• The person must either know the statement to be false, or believe it to be false, or not believe it to be true. 
• Explanation 1 clarifies that a statement within the meaning of this section can be made verbally or otherwise. 
• Explanation 2 states that a false statement as to the belief of the person attesting is within the meaning of this section. 
• A person may be guilty of giving false evidence by stating that they believe a thing which they do not believe. 
• Similarly, a person may be guilty by stating that they know a thing which they do not know. 
• The essence of the offence is making a false statement when under a legal obligation to tell the truth. 

Legal Provision  

• Section 227  
  • Section 227 states that 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 states that a statement is within this section's meaning whether verbally or otherwise. 
  • Explanation 2 states that 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. 
• Section 229 
  • Section 229 deals with Punishment for false evidence. (earlier it was given under Section 193 of IPC) 
  • It states that under Section 229 (1) 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 which may extend to ten thousand rupees. 
  • Sub-Section (2) states that whoever intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence in any case other than that referred to in subsection (1), shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to five thousand rupees 

What are the Essential Elements of this Offense? 

• The accused must be legally bound by oath, affirmation, or statutory provision to state the truth. 
• The accused must have provided false evidence or testimony. 
• Such false evidence must be knowingly and intentionally given. 
• Alternatively, the accused must have willfully concealed material facts. 
• The false evidence must be provided in a judicial proceeding. 
• Judicial proceedings include, but are not limited to, trials, hearings, and depositions. 
• The offense extends to other quasi-judicial or administrative proceedings where evidence is legally taken. 
• Such proceedings may include departmental inquiries, tribunals, or statutory bodies empowered to receive evidence. 
• The falsehood must be material to the proceeding in question. 
• The accused's mens rea must encompass knowledge of the falsity or disbelief in the truth of their statement. 

When Can Perjury Proceedings Be Initiated Against a Litigant?    

• The word 'Perjury' is derived from the Latin word Perjurium.  
  • 'Perjurium' was referred to as a sin but not as a public wrong. 
• Perjury proceedings can be initiated against a litigant when they knowingly make false statements under oath in legal proceedings, provided that the false statements are material to the case and are proven to be deliberate falsehoods rather than mere errors or inaccuracies. 
• Section 191 IPC, applies to individuals who, being under oath or under an express legal obligation to provide truthful information, knowingly make false statements, or statements that they either believe to be false or do not believe to be true. 
• Such false evidence can be delivered in either written or oral form. 

Case Law  

• Abdul Majid v. Krishna Lal Nag,(1893) 
  • The court held that false evidence must be given in a proceeding in which the accused was bound by law to speak the truth.  
  • If the court has no authority to administer an oath the proceeding will be coram non-judice and prosecution for false evidence cannot stand.  
  • Similar will be the case where a court is acting beyond the jurisdiction.”