A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case primarily examines whether a false affidavit filed before the High Court constitutes an offense under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), which pertains to giving false evidence. The appellant, accused under Sections 376 and 504 IPC in an unrelated matter, was alleged to have filed a false affidavit in the bail proceedings before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the bail cancellation application but observed that the appellant intentionally filed a false affidavit and directed the Registrar (Judicial) to file a complaint under Section 193 IPC. The Supreme Court analyzed the essential ingredients for invoking Section 193 IPC and concluded that mere denial of the complainant’s allegations, absent evidence of deliberate falsehood or mala fide intention, does not constitute perjury. The High Court’s direction was set aside.

Keywords: False Affidavit, Section 193 IPC, Perjury, Section 195 CrPC, Deliberate Falsehood, Judicial Proceedings

B) CASE DETAILS

• i) Judgment Cause Title: James Kunjwal v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.
• ii) Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 3350 of 2024
• iii) Judgment Date: August 13, 2024
• iv) Court: Supreme Court of India
• v) Quorum: B.R. Gavai, Sanjay Karol, and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.
• vi) Author: Sanjay Karol, J.
• vii) Citation: [2024] 8 S.C.R. 332
• viii) Legal Provisions Involved: Sections 191 and 193 IPC, Section 195(1)(b) CrPC
• ix) Judgments Overruled: None
• x) Related Law Subjects: Criminal Law, Evidence Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The case revolves around allegations of perjury concerning statements made in affidavits during bail proceedings. The appellant was accused of offenses under Sections 376 (rape) and 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) IPC. Following his bail, the complainant sought its cancellation, alleging inconsistencies in the appellant’s statements. The High Court dismissed the bail cancellation but initiated proceedings under Section 193 IPC, finding intentional falsehood in the appellant’s affidavit. The Supreme Court was tasked with evaluating whether the appellant’s statements met the threshold for prosecution under Section 193 IPC.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The appellant was accused under Sections 376 and 504 IPC on allegations of establishing a relationship with the complainant under false promises of marriage.
2. Following denial of bail by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, the appellant approached the High Court, which granted bail.
3. The complainant filed a bail cancellation application, alleging inconsistencies in the appellant’s affidavit.
4. The High Court dismissed the cancellation but found the appellant’s affidavit to contain deliberate falsehoods, directing the Registrar (Judicial) to initiate proceedings under Section 193 IPC.
5. The appellant challenged this direction in the Supreme Court.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

• Whether the appellant’s affidavit statements constituted perjury under Sections 191 and 193 IPC.
• Whether the High Court was justified in directing prosecution under Section 193 IPC in the absence of clear evidence of deliberate falsehood.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Denial of Perjury: The appellant contended that denying allegations in an affidavit does not amount to giving false evidence as defined under Section 191 IPC.
2. No Evidence of Deliberate Falsehood: The statements made were the appellant’s version of events, with no evidence of mala fide intent or material inaccuracies.
3. Applicability of Section 195 CrPC: The prosecution under Section 193 IPC requires adherence to Section 195 CrPC, which mandates a judicial finding of expedience and interest of justice.
4. Reliance on Precedents: The appellant cited Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah [(2005) 4 SCC 370] and Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam [(1971) 1 SCC 774], emphasizing that perjury proceedings should only be initiated in exceptional circumstances with substantive evidence.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. False Affidavit: The respondent argued that the appellant intentionally misrepresented facts in his affidavit to influence the Court.
2. Material Falsehood: The complainant pointed out contradictions between the appellant’s affidavit and evidence submitted, including messages and complaints.
3. High Court’s Discretion: The respondent supported the High Court’s decision, claiming it was within its discretion to direct prosecution under Section 193 IPC.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

1. Section 191 IPC: Defines “giving false evidence,” requiring false statements made under legal obligation with knowledge of their falsity.
2. Section 193 IPC: Punishes intentional false evidence in judicial proceedings, with imprisonment up to seven years.
3. Section 195(1)(b) CrPC: Restricts the initiation of prosecution under Sections 193–196 IPC, requiring a formal complaint from the concerned court.

I) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

1. Threshold for Perjury: The Supreme Court held that mere denial or inaccuracies in affidavits, without evidence of deliberate falsehood, do not meet the threshold for perjury under Sections 191 and 193 IPC.
2. Role of Intent: The Court emphasized the need for clear evidence of mala fide intent to invoke Section 193 IPC, referencing precedents like Dr. S.P. Kohli v. High Court of Haryana [(1979) 1 SCC 212].
3. Procedural Safeguards: The Court reiterated that prosecution under Section 193 IPC must satisfy the procedural requirements of Section 195 CrPC, ensuring that proceedings are initiated only when expedient in the interest of justice.

b. Obiter Dicta

The Court underscored that frivolous initiation of perjury proceedings undermines judicial efficacy and should be avoided unless absolutely necessary.

c. Guidelines

1. Perjury proceedings must rest on clear evidence of deliberate falsehood, not mere inaccuracies.
2. Courts must ensure procedural compliance under Section 195 CrPC before sanctioning prosecution under Section 193 IPC.

J) REFERENCES

1. Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah [(2005) 4 SCC 370]
2. Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam [(1971) 1 SCC 774]
3. Dr. S.P. Kohli v. High Court of Haryana [(1979) 1 SCC 212]
4. R.S. Sujatha v. State of Karnataka [(2011) 5 SCC 689]
5. Bhima Razu Prasad v. State Rep. by Deputy Supdt. of Police, CBI [(2021) 19 SCC 25]