Witness Cannot Be Prosecuted For Perjury U/s 193 IPC For Mere Inconsistency In His Statements: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that a witness cannot be prosecuted for perjury under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code merely because he made inconsistent statements before the Court.

The bench led by CJI NV Ramana observed that the prosecution for perjury cannot be ordered if there is no intentional falsehood uttered. Mere reference to inconsistent statements alone is not sufficient to take action unless a definite finding is given that they are irreconcilable; one is opposed to the other so as to make one of them deliberately false, the court said.

"Even in a case where the Court comes to the conclusion on the aspect of intentional false evidence, still the Court has to form an opinion whether it is expedient in the interest of justice to initiate an inquiry into the offences of false evidence, having regard to the overall factual matrix as well as the probable consequences of such prosecution. The Court must be satisfied that such an inquiry is required in the interest of justice and is appropriate in the facts of the case.", the bench also comprising Justices AS Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy added.

In this case, the Karnataka High Court ordered prosecution of Returning Officer on a finding that he gave false evidence before the Court while he was examined in the Election Petition.

In appeal filed against this order, the bench, referring to the statements made by the officer, observed that it could not find any deliberate falsehood uttered, much less is there any inconsistency.  That apart, the learned Judge also had not put the appellant on notice on the allegation of committing perjury and provided him an opportunity nor has the learned Judge come to the conclusion that one of the versions is deliberate or intentional falsehood and that therefore, action is necessary to be taken against him, the court said.

"The position of law which is well established is that even in a case where the Court comes to the conclusion on the aspect of intentional false evidence, still the Court has to form an opinion whether it is expedient in the interest of justice to initiate an inquiry into the offences of false evidence, having regard to the overall factual matrix as well as the probable consequences of such prosecution. The Court must be satisfied that such an inquiry is required in the interest of justice and is appropriate in the facts of the case. In that backdrop, insofar as the observation made by the learned Judge of the election tribunal relating to the need for maintaining purity of the election process which is the heart and soul of democracy and in that situation the role of the Returning Officer being pivotal, we fully concur with the same. However, it is also to be noted, merely because of that position the Returning Officer in the instant case need not be exposed to prosecution", the bench observed while setting aside the High Court direction.

Case: N.S. Nandiesha Reddy  vs. Kavitha Mahesh ; CA 4821 OF 2012

Coram: CJI NV Ramana, Justices AS Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy

Click here to Read/Download Judgment