Perjury - 193 IPC r/w 340 CrPC

 

Statue

1. 193 IPC r/w 340 CrPC

Important Points

1. Mere contradictory statements NOT itself always sufficient to justify prosecution for perjury.
2. It must establish that false statement was made INTENTIONALLY
3. Even when it is concluded that it was intentional false evidence - 
1. Court has to form opinion whether it is EXPEDIENT in the interest of Justice to Initiate an inquiry into offence of false evidence.
2. Consider overall factual matrix and probable consequences. 

Case Law

1. KTMS Mohammad & anr Vs UoI 1992 3 SCC 178
1. Para 37
1. 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 IPC 
2. But it must be established that the deponent has INTENTIONALLY  give a false statement in any stage of the judicial proceeding or fabricated false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of the judicial proceeding.
3. Further, such a prosecution for perjury should be taken only if it is expedient in the interest of Justice.
2. Amarsang Nathaji Vs Hardik Harshadbhai Patel & Ors 2017 1 SCC 113
1. Offense of false evidence and offense against public justice and more specifically referred in Section 340(1) CrPC, having regard to the overall factual matrix as well as the probable consequences of such a prosecution.
2. Even in a case where the Court comes to the conclusion on the aspect of intentional false evidence, 
1. still the court has to form an opinion whether it is expedient in the interest of justice to initiate an inquiry into the offense of false evidence, 
1. having regard to the overall factual matrix as well as probable consequences of such prosecution.