IPC 195 – Giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of offence punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment

Posted on July 17, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

—Whoever gives or fabricates 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 by the law for the time being in force in India is not capital, but 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.

Illustration

A gives false evidence before a Court of Justice, intending thereby to cause Z to be convicted of a dacoity. The punishment of dacoity is imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, with or without fine. A, therefore, is liable to imprisonment for life or imprisonment, with or without fine.

Post Views: 539

IPC 194 – Giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of capital offence

Posted on July 17, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

—Whoever gives or fabricates 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 capital by the law for the time being in force in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; if innocent person be thereby convicted and executed.

—and if an innocent person be convicted and executed in consequence of such false evidence, the person who gives such false evidence shall be punished either with death or the punishment hereinbefore described.

Post Views: 630

IPC 193 – Punishment for false evidence

Posted on July 17, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

—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,

and whoever intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence in any other case, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation 1.—A trial before a Court-martial; 1[***] is a judicial proceeding.

Explanation 2.—An investigation directed by law preliminary to a proceeding before a Court of Justice, is a stage of a judicial proceeding, though that investigation may not take place before a Court of Justice. Illustration A, in an enquiry before a Magistrate for the purpose of ascertaining whether Z ought to be committed for trial, makes on oath a statement which he knows to be false. As this enquiry is a stage of a judicial proceeding, A has given false evidence.

Explanation 3.—An investigation directed by a Court of Justice according to law, and conducted under the authority of a Court of Justice, is a stage of a judicial proceeding, though that investigation may not take place before a Court of Justice. 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. As this enquiry is a stage of a judicial proceeding. A has given false evidence.

Post Views: 575

IPC 192 – Fabricating false evidence

Posted on July 17, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

—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”.

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.

(c) A, with the intention of causing Z to be convicted of a criminal conspiracy, writes a letter in imitation of Z’s handwriting, purporting to be addressed to an accomplice in such criminal conspiracy, and puts the letter in a place which he knows that the officers of the Police are likely to search. A has fabricated false evidence.

Post Views: 112

IPC 191 – Giving false evidence

Posted on July 17, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

—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.—A statement is within the meaning of this section, whether it is made verbally or otherwise.

Explanation 2.—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.

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, knowing the general character of Z’s handwriting, states that he believes a certain signature to be the handwriting of Z; A in good faith believing it to be so. Here A’s statement is merely as to his belief, and is true as to his belief, and therefore, although the signature may not be the handwriting of Z, A has not given false evidence.

(d) 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.

(e) A, an interpreter or translator, gives or certifies as a true interpretation or translation of a statement or document which he is bound by oath to interpret or translate truly, that which is not and which he does not believe to be a true interpretation or translation. A has given false evidence.

Post Views: 104

Dipanshi And Another Vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 21 November, 2016

Posted on July 17, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Taking away the list of judgments cited in this judgment from Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad, here is the judgment.

The facts would reveal that the second petitioner is aged about 32 years and the first petitioner is merely 18 years, second petitioner despite fully being aware that he has a living spouse, he duped the first petitioner and convinced her to elope with him under a false assurance of second marriage. Thereafter, the second petitioner had audacity to swear a false affidavit before the Court stating that this is his first marriage, thus, indulging in fraud and misrepresentation, both with the first petitioner and with the Constitutional Court. Such conduct cannot be ignored, law has to take its own course.
In regard thereto, false affidavit on oath has been filed by the second petitioner to misrepresent before the Court, which is wilful and deliberate, thus, exposing himself for prosecution under Section 193 IPC. No further enquiry or explanation is required.
Registrar General is directed to lodge a complaint before the competent Magistrate at Allahabad against the second
petitioner for filing false affidavit to mislead the Court. Second petitioner shall be taken into custody forthwith. The first petitioner being adult is let free.

Dipanshi And Another Vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 21 November, 2016

Index of all Perjury case laws is here.

Post Views: 472

Dinakar Vs Krishnamurthy on 12 November, 2009

Posted on July 15, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This case involves a retired DGP of Karnataka state regarding a murder of one Murugan who along with 2 others broke into DGP’s house on a fateful date. The petitioner Dinakar, on behalf of the said Muragun, has tried to file a case, but in vain. Hence he approached the Home Minister of Karnataka and NHRC ar Delhi. On this the DGP was aggrieved and filed a defamation case on Dinkar. Dinakar filed many applications at various fora praying that the defamation case be dismissed and in this regard he challenged the jurisdiction and power of taking cognizance of case by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, which was brought before Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the instant case.

There were interesting arguments and counter-arguments supported by judgments of various High Courts and their Division Benches and also Hon’ble Apex Court. Read on.

Dinakar Vs Krishnamurthy on 12 November, 2009

Post Views: 176

Asit Bhattacharjee Vs MS. Hanuman Prasad Ojha & Ors on 15 May, 2007

Posted on July 15, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this judgment by Hon’ble Apex Court, it is held that,

The necessary ingredients for proving a criminal offence must exist in a complaint petition. Such ingredients of offence must be referable to the places where the cause of action in regard to commission of offence has arisen. A cause of action as understood in its ordinary parlance may be relevant for exercise of jurisdiction under Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India but its definition stricto sensu may not be applicable for the purpose of bringing home a charge of criminal offence. The application filed by the appellant under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure disclosed commission of a large number of offences.

Asit Bhattacharjee Vs MS. Hanuman Prasad Ojha & Ors on 15 May, 2007

Post Views: 156

Fareed Ahmed Qureshi Vs State of Maharashtra on 7 March, 2018

Posted on July 14, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

An order for inquiry for perjury was passed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court under section 340 of Cr.P.C against offences under sections 193, 196, 199, 200 and 209 of IPC.

Fareed Ahmed Qureshi Vs State of Maharashtra on 7 March, 2018

This Order was set aside by Apex Court here.

Post Views: 519

Naresh Kavarchand Khatri Vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 8 May, 2008

Posted on July 14, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat has passed an order to transfer a case from Vadodara to another police station having territorial jurisdiction or to CID Crime or any other independent agency. This without the notice to/knowledge of the original complainant. Read on.

From Para 5,

The informant was not impleaded as a party therein. No notice was issued on the said appeals. No reason has been assigned. The Court did not advert to the question as to whether it had any jurisdiction to pass the said order. Why such a concession was made by the learned APP on the very first day of hearing is not known.
….
The Court should not interfere in the matter at an initial stage in regard thereto. If it is found that the investigation has been conducted by an Investigating Officer who did not have any territorial jurisdiction in the matter, the same should be transferred by him to the police station having the requisite jurisdiction.

From Para 6,

It is of some significance that the High Court exercised its jurisdiction even without notice to the petitioner. The investigation has to be carried out on the basis of the allegations made. The first informant is required to be examined; statements of his witnesses were required to be taken; the accused were also required to be interrogated.
The undue haste with which the High Court has exercised its jurisdiction, in our opinion, should not be encouraged.

Finally,

We, therefore, are of the opinion that it is not a case where we should refuse to exercise jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. We, therefore, set aside the impugned orders. Consequently, the charge sheets filed by the Wagodhia Police Station stand set aside. The concerned Police Officer of Vadodara Police Station would initiate appropriate investigation in the matter in accordance with law.

Naresh Kavarchand Khatri Vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 8 May, 2008

Post Views: 146

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

IPC 195 – Giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of offence punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment

IPC 194 – Giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of capital offence

IPC 193 – Punishment for false evidence

IPC 192 – Fabricating false evidence

IPC 191 – Giving false evidence

Dipanshi And Another Vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 21 November, 2016

Dinakar Vs Krishnamurthy on 12 November, 2009

Asit Bhattacharjee Vs MS. Hanuman Prasad Ojha & Ors on 15 May, 2007

Fareed Ahmed Qureshi Vs State of Maharashtra on 7 March, 2018

Naresh Kavarchand Khatri Vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 8 May, 2008