Perjury in India

Perjury

The simple definition of “Perjury” is giving / furnishing /submitting intentionally false evidence by the person bound by law to state the truth or give/ submit/ furnish actual proof in a court of law.

Recently the High Court of Karnataka has stated in Dr. XXXXX And Dr XXXXX , writ Petition No. xxxx of 2015, that consideration of complaints regarding “Perjury” should not be deferred or delayed by the courts.

Brief of the Case:

The petitioner & respondent are an estranged couple; both are medical practitioners, apparently of some standing in the profession. The petitioner-husband has instituted in the Court below seeking a decree for annulment of marriage with the respondent; that proceeding is pending; the respondent had filed an application u/s. Twenty-four of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking Rs.1,00,000/- as monthly maintenance and for a lump sum of Rs.75,000/- as litigation expenses; the same having been rejected vide order dated 06.02.2015.

In the case above, the respondent-wife, in her affidavit dated supporting the application for maintenance, falsely stated her unemployment and lack of income. The petitioner’s husband moved an application in the lower court to initiate proceedings against her wife for committing “Perjury.” The lower court Judge rejected the husband’s application because it was premature.

The aggrieved husband challenged the impugned order in the case above in the High Court of Karnataka. The Hon’ble High Court considered the following cases of the Apex Court while dealing with the case.

In  Mahila Vinod Kumari vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 8 SCC 34 has observed as under: “… The evil of perjury has assumed alarming proportions in cases depending on oral evidence and in order to deal with the menace effectively, it is desirable for the Courts to use the provision more effectively and frequently, than it is presently done…”  In the Apex Court  echoed the same concern in Re Suo moto Proceedings(2001) 5 SCC 289, by making the following observations: “The Courts are … expected to do justice quickly …Justice dispensation system would be wrecked ifstatutory restrictions are not imposed upon the litigants,who attempt to mislead the Court by filing and relyingupon the false evidence particularly in cases, theadjudication of which is depended upon the statementof facts… the purity of proceedings of the Court cannotbe permitted to be sullied by a party on …relying uponfalse evidence inspired by extraneous considerations orrevengeful desire to harass or spite his opponent.Sanctity of the affidavits has to be preserved andprotected discouraging the filing of irresponsible statements, without any regard to accuracy…cIn India law relating to the offence of perjury iscgiven a statutory definition u/s.191 and Chapter XI ofcthe Indian Penal Code… The offences incorporated under this Chapter are based upon recognition of the decline of moral values and erosion of sanctity of oath. Unscrupulous litigants are found daily resorting to utter blatant falsehood in the courts which has to some extent resulted in polluting the judicial system… Effective and stern action is required to be taken for preventing the evil of perjury … The mere existence of the penal provisions to deal with perjury would be a cruel joke with the society unless the courts stop to take an evasive recourse despite proof of the commission of the offence under Chapter XI… If the system is to service, effective action is the need of the time …”. Justice Krishna S Dixit said  “Act of perjury is treated as a heinous offence in all civilized societies, consideration of complaints with regard to the same cannot be deferred and delayed ;  otherwise there is all possibility of the fountain of justice of being polluted.”

In the light of aforesaid judgments, the High Court of Karnataka perused that the lower Court below had recorded a specific finding as to the income of the respondent from the medical profession that too on the basis of undisputed IT Returns for the relevant period when it has also recorded a specific finding that the respondent has suppressed the fact that she was earning income; that being the position, the application of petitioner for initiating action for the offence of perjury, could not have been turned down as being premature merely because main matter is still pending; consideration of such an application has nothing to do with the main concern.

In the above circumstances, the High Court of Karnataka set aside the impugned order. It remanded the lower court to determine the petitioner’s application for initiating “Perjury” proceedings. Another case of the High Court of Gujarat is along the same tangent as the case above law: Sejalben Tejasbhai Chovatiya v. State of Gujarat [SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 7666 of 2016]: In this case, the petitioner’s wife had allegedly submitted false information in her maintenance case against her husband, concealing information about her income. Based on an application moved by the husband before the Family Court, Rajkot took action against the wife under sections 195 read with section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), committing an offence under sections 191, 192 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code, the Family Court recorded the evidence on both the sides and directed the Registrar of Family Court to apply to the Pradyuman Nagar police station under sections 191,192 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner’s wife challenged this order before the Gujarat High Court vide the above Special Criminal Application for quashing the said order. The high court observed that:

 “The high court held that laws which are otherwise in favour of the distressed wife when are sought to be misused by declaring completely incorrect facts and also by suppressing the material aspect, the trial Court at the time of considering the case found that the impact on the administration of justice would make it expedient for it to direct the prosecution. In these circumstances, the high court refused to interfere the order of the Family Court directing prosecution of the petitioner wife for perjury in her maintenance case. It was held that even otherwise, the petitioner would get all the opportunities to defend her case effectively. Accordingly, her Special Criminal Application for quashing of the Family Court order was dismissed.”

“Perjury” is Criminal Contempt of Court too.

In addition to the offence of “Perjury”, when a false evidence or oral testimony is submitted in the court proceedings under oath, the contempt of court is all committed. The definition of “criminal contempt” within the meaning of Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, includes the doing of any act which “interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice” in any manner. Making of a false statement on oath may interfere with the administration of justice and may thus amount to contempt.

A false statement in an affidavit before a court amounts to an offence of perjury, which may be punished under Section 193 of the IPC or under other relevant sections. At the same time, deliberately making a false statement in an affidavit before a court may also amount to contempt.

In the case of Murray & Co. v. Ashok Kr. Newatia, (2000) 2 SCC 367: AIR 2000 SC 833, the Supreme Court held that a false statement deliberately made in an affidavit before the court amounted to contempt.

Likewise, in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2003) 5 SCC 376 : 2003 Cri LJ 2045 : AIR 2003 SC 3469, the Supreme Court held that filing a false statement or false affidavit is contempt of court [relying upon the aforesaid Murray case, and also on Bank of India v. Vijay Transport, (2000) 8 SCC 512; Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana, (1995) 3 SCC 757].

In a similar manner, in the case of U.P. Residents Employees Coop. House Building Society v. NOIDA, (2004) 9 SCC 670 : AIR 2003 SC 2723, it was held that filing of false affidavit also amounts to contempt of Court.

Thus, it should be clear that making of a false statement in an affidavit filed before the court may also amount to contempt of court, in addition to the offence of “Perjury”.

Conclusion

The seriousness of the offence of “Perjury” had been recognized a century ago therefore it was made a penal offence and a chapter dedicated to False Evidence and Offences against Public Justice was embedded in the Indian Penal Code to punish for “Perjurer”. Despite numerous observations made by the Apex court about the high prevalence of “Perjury” in court proceedings, the lower courts are reluctant to punish “Perjurer.”

The offence of  “Perjury” is stating false testimony or furnishing false evidence by a person on oath. It can be done by stating wrong or incorrect or suppressed information in the affidavit submitted in the court proceedings. The main ingredient of the offence is “Intentional or Voluntary” act of falsely testifying, submitting or furnishing fake evidence or suppressing information in the court proceedings.

In the supra cases, Dr XXXXX and  Dr XXXXX Writ Petition No. xxxxx of 2015, Karnataka High Court and  Sejalben  Tejasbhai  Chovatiya v. State of Gujarat [SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 7666 of 2016] High Court of Gujarat,  different  high courts found that the action of wife of suppressing information by providing incorrect details with regard to the income in the legal proceedings was fit cases for considering initiating proceedings for “Perjury” against the wife.

It is also pertinent to highlight that the offence of “Perjury” is contempt of court as per the number of cases aforementioned. The duty of court to deal with “Perjury” is quoted in the aforesaid case of Perumal vs Janaki on 20 January, 2014 by the apex court. The courts are not only sufficiently competent but also obligated to deal with the offence of “Perjury” so as to establish a deterrence for the people who come to the court for seeking justice.