Perjury Under Ipc And Its Enforcement
1. What is Perjury?
Perjury refers to the offence of knowingly making false statements under oath or fabricating false evidence before a court or public servant. It is essentially lying under oath, which can severely impact the course of justice.
2. Relevant Sections under IPC
| Section | Title | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| 191 IPC | Giving false evidence | Lying under oath in any stage of judicial proceeding or to a public servant. |
| 192 IPC | Fabricating false evidence | Creating false circumstances or documents to mislead a judicial proceeding. |
| 193 IPC | Punishment for false evidence | Up to 7 years and fine if during a judicial proceeding, or up to 3 years otherwise. |
| 195 CrPC | Procedure for prosecution | No court can take cognizance of perjury unless complaint is made by the court before which the offence was committed. |
3. Elements of Perjury
For perjury to be established:
False statement or evidence must be under oath.
The statement must be material to the proceeding.
The person must know it is false and must intend to mislead the court.
Mens rea (intention) is essential.
Court’s permission is required under Section 195 CrPC for prosecution.
✅ Detailed Case Laws on Perjury in India
1. Narayan Swami v. Emperor (1939 AIR 47)
Facts:
The accused made a false statement under oath during a judicial proceeding. He was found to have fabricated a story to protect the real culprit.
Held:
The Privy Council held that even if the false evidence did not affect the final decision of the case, it was still punishable under Section 193 IPC. The court emphasized the integrity of the judicial process and said perjury undermines it.
Significance:
This case laid down that intent and falsity are enough; actual impact on the outcome isn’t necessary.
2. Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam & Another (AIR 1971 SC 1367)
Facts:
The appellant filed a false complaint and knowingly submitted a false affidavit in a civil case. Later, it was proved that the claims were fraudulent.
Held:
The Supreme Court ruled that perjury proceedings cannot be used as a substitute for appeal or revision. It emphasized that perjury must be intentional and malicious, not arising from mere inconsistencies.
Significance:
Set strict limits to avoid misuse of perjury charges for retaliation in civil litigation.
3. Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah (2005) 4 SCC 370
Facts:
False will was submitted in a property dispute. One party filed a complaint under Sections 191, 192, 193 IPC alleging forgery and false evidence.
Held:
The Supreme Court clarified that prosecution for perjury must follow Section 195(1)(b)(i) of CrPC. Only the court where the offence occurred can sanction prosecution, not private parties.
Significance:
This case clarified that private complaints of perjury are not maintainable unless routed through the court itself.
4. Murray & Co. v. Ashok Kr. Newatia & Anr. (2000) 2 SCC 367
Facts:
Respondent filed false affidavits in a civil case for injunction. Later found to be forged and misleading.
Held:
The Supreme Court expressed serious concern over misuse of affidavits and stated that any falsehood in judicial proceedings should be dealt with iron hands.
Significance:
Court stated that truth should be the guiding star in litigation and recommended strict action against those committing perjury, though no direct punishment was awarded.
5. Rameshwar Dayal v. State of U.P. (AIR 1978 SC 1558)
Facts:
The appellant was charged with fabricating evidence in a criminal trial involving dacoity.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that false identification by the accused in a judicial proceeding with an intention to mislead is covered under Section 192 IPC, and punishable under Section 193 IPC.
Significance:
This case demonstrated that even misleading identification or silence when truth is expected can lead to perjury prosecution.
6. Mahila Vinod Kumari v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2008) 8 SCC 34
Facts:
The prosecutrix (woman complainant) turned hostile in a rape case, giving false statements contrary to her earlier claims.
Held:
The Court noted that turning hostile in serious cases like rape, with intent to mislead, can attract perjury charges, and it directed action against the woman under Section 193 IPC.
Significance:
Sent a strong signal to witnesses who misuse the judicial process by deliberately lying or changing their stand.
⚖️ Enforcement & Challenges in India
Challenges:
Section 195 CrPC limits direct initiation of prosecution — only courts can initiate.
Lengthy legal process discourages courts from taking action.
Courts often prefer to avoid complicating ongoing proceedings with perjury trials.
Lack of deterrence – conviction rates are low.
Why Courts Hesitate:
They prioritize deciding the main matter.
Perjury prosecution becomes a separate trial.
It requires proof beyond reasonable doubt of the falsehood and intention.
🛠️ Suggestions for Better Enforcement
Special courts or fast-track procedures for perjury.
Strict enforcement by judges themselves under Section 195 CrPC.
Increased awareness among lawyers and litigants.
Introduction of civil penalties for perjury in civil matters.
✅ Conclusion
Perjury is a serious offence that strikes at the heart of the judicial process. Though Indian law provides a clear framework under IPC Sections 191–193 and procedural guidance under CrPC Section 195, implementation is weak. Case laws show that courts take it seriously but rarely act unless the falsehood is egregious. Strengthening enforcement is crucial for upholding the sanctity and credibility of the justice system.
RELATED Blog
0 comments