Law and You > Criminal Laws > Indian Penal Code > False Evidence and Fabrication of False Evidence (S. 191 to 193 IPC)
Evidence is information which is used in the court to prove something which exists or true. False evidence, also known as fabricated evidence, forged evidence, or contaminated evidence, is information that has been created or obtained illegally in order to influence a court’s decision. Such type of evidence can be produced by either side in a case (including the police/prosecution in a criminal case) or by a third party sympathetic to either side. Although suppression of evidence can be deemed a kind of false evidence (by omission), suppressed evidence is sometimes omitted because it cannot be proven that the accused was aware of the things discovered or their location. In this article, let us discuss meaning of false evidence and fabrication of false evidence.
Information is used as evidence in court to establish the truth or existence of a claim. According to the Indian Penal Code of 1860, providing false testimony or inventing false testimony is illegal. Sections 191 and 192 of the IPC’s Chapter XI explicitly refer to the provisions of “manufacturing false evidence” and “providing false evidence.” Giving false evidence is different from fabricating, which refers to making up information with the goal of deceit or making false statements in order to sway a jury’s decision.
The perjury definition is the crime of lying while under oath by giving misleading facts about an issue or a person that the witness is asked to testify about in a court of law. Witnesses swear under penalty of law to tell the whole truth to the best of their knowledge about the event they have been selected to testify about. The witness has to proclaim that they will, “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”.
False Evidence and its Kinds:
False evidence is information given by a person to divert the verdict in a court case. Following are the major types of false evidence –
- Forged Evidence: An object or piece of information that has been manufactured or altered to promote a certain agenda.
- Planted Evidence: In many courts, something or information that has been moved or planted at a scene to seem related to the accused defendant is not admissible because it is an item or information that has been relocated or planted at a scene to appear related to the accused party
- Tainted Evidence: The information gained illegally or exposed (or traced) using evidence obtained through illegal search and/or seizure is known as “fruit of the poisonous tree” and is not admissible in many courts.
- Parallel Construction OR Contaminated Evidence: in such evidence the source of the evidence is misrepresented, avoiding debate about whether it was obtained legally or not because the origin of the evidence is falsely stated.
- Suppressed Evidence: An item or piece of information that has been pronounced “inadmissible” by a court judge is not allowed to be offered in court. Evidence that was suppressed could be excluded if it was discovered concealed or locked up in places where the accused could not be demonstrated to be aware.
Section 191 IPC:
Giving False Evidence:
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.
Ingredients of Giving False Evidence S. 191 IPC:
- A false statement, made by a person, who is bound by an oath; or by an express provisions of law; or
- A declaration which a person is bound by law to make on any subject; and which statement or declaration is false and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true.
- Such a statement is made intentionally.
Section 191 is applicable only when a statement is made by a person bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth. Whether expressed verbally or in writing, a statement falls within the scope of this section. A person may be guilty of delivering false evidence if he states that he believes something he doesn’t believe or that he knows something he doesn’t know.
The duty to state the truth is laid down in S. 8 of the Oaths Act 1969. Whenever in a court of law, a person binds himself on oath to state the truth, he is bound to state the truth.
In Rameshwar Kalyan v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1952 SC 54 case, the Apex Court has observed that the purpose of administering the oath to a witness is to bring home the solemnity of the occasion and to impress upon him the duty of speaking the truth.
In Ranjit vs. State, AIR 1959 SC 843 case, the Court held that a defendant or even a plaintiff is not bound to enter into the witness box, but if either of them steps into the witness box, he is bound to speak the truth, and if he does not do that, he becomes liable for punishment. It is no defence to say that he was not bound to step into the witness box.
In Chajooram vs. Radhey Shyam, AIR 1971 SC 1367 case, the Court held that there must be prima-facie case of deliberate falsehood on a matter of subsistence and the Court should be satisfied that there is reasonable foundation for the charge. Prosecution should be ordered when it is considered expedient in the interest of justice to punish the delinquent and not merely because there is some inaccuracy which may be innocent or immaterial.
In Mishrilal vs. State, (2005) 10 SCC 701 case, the Court held that in order to attract mischief of the section, the statements ought to be made in a stage of judicial proceedings, and statements under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not come under that category.
In Abdul Majid v. Krishna Lal Nag, (1893) ILR 20 Cal 724 case, the Court held that the false evidence must be given in a proceeding in which the accused was bound by law to speak the truth. If the court has no authority to administer an oath the proceeding will be coram non-judice and prosecution for false evidence cannot stand. Similar will be the case where a court is acting beyond the jurisdiction.
The administration and bounding by it is necessary element of Section 191.
In Ramesh Singh Bisht v. State of Uttarakhand decided on 1 Aug, 2013 case, where it was found that the accused was not administered oath by Magistrate (although he was empowered to administer oath) it was decided that: “Section 164(5) of CrPC empowers the Magistrate, who records statement under Section 164 of CrPC, to administer oath to the person whose statement is about to be recorded. Section 191 of IPC is, therefore, not attracted, and, hence, there is no question of application of Section 193 of IPC in the present case.”
The words ‘legally bound by an oath’ contemplate a witness. No advocate is legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth. A lawyer, therefore, cannot be held guilty for giving false evidence.
A declaration means a formal statement made in writing and required by law to be made in writing. To invoke the section the statement must be a false statement and the person making it must know or believe it to be false or must not believe it to be true to this section. A false verification of a written statement filed in a suit is an offence under this section. It is necessary to prove that the facts, which if accepted as true, show that the statement made by the accused is not merely incredible, but cannot possibly be true.
Generally, a statement of a witness made before Sessions Court which is contradictory to the earlier made before the Police under Sec.162 per se is not liable for perjury. It cannot be said that he is giving a false evidence.
Section 192 IPC:
Fabricating False Evidence:
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.
Section 192 defines the offence of fabricating false evidence. The essence of the offence consists in making a false entry in a book of record or electronic record or in a document containing a false statement so as to cause a judge, a public servant or an arbitrator to entertain an erroneous opinion on any material point.
Example:
There is a shopkeeper ‘X’ whose shop is in Lucknow and he pretends that his shop was open on 20th May 2019 although his shop was closed. He shows in his book entry that his shop was open. However, on that day ‘X’ went to Delhi and committed the crime of extortion. When Police investigates about it he shows his book entry as evidence. This would qualify as fabricating false evidence.
Ingredients of Section 192
- The causing of
(a) any circumstance to exist; or
(b) making any false entry; or
(c) of any document containing a false statement;
- With the intention that it may appear in evidence in
(a) a judicial proceeding;
(b) in a proceeding taken by law before public servant; or
(c) an arbitrator;
- In order to cause any person whose duty it is in such proceedings to form an opinion upon the evidence to arrive at an erroneous opinion on any point material to the result of such proceeding.
- Such a fabrication is made intentionally.
It may be pertinent to point out that the offence of fabrication may arise by not only an act of commission i.e. by making a false entry in any book or register or document but can also take place if a material omission is made in an entry or statement.
In Baban Singh v. Jagdish Singh, AIR 1967 SC 68 case, the Apex Court held that where a witness swears by a false affidavit in a proceeding before a Court, the offence would fall under Sections 191 and 192 and is liable for punishment under the former sections.
Difference Between Giving False Evidence and Fabricating False Evidence
- For both the cases intention is necessary ingredient. But in case of giving false evidence general intention is sufficient whereas in case of fabricating false evidence particular intention as to deceit a person to take erroneous decision is necessary.
- Only a person bound by the oath or by any provision of law or by a declaration to state truth will be held liable under the offence of giving false evidence. Whereas any person who is not legally bound under the oath can be held liable under the offence of fabricating false evidence.
- Under offence of giving false evidence, it is not necessary that the false statement made relates to a material point in the suit. Whereas in order to make an offence under fabricating false evidence it is necessary that the false evidence relates to a material point of the case.
- Under the offence of giving false evidence, it is necessary that the false evidence is given during the conduction of a proceeding. Whereas the same is not necessary under fabrication of false evidence but there should be reasonable prospect of the proceeding.
- The effect of giving false evidence on the opinion of the officer before whom it is presented is of no consideration whereas the effect is important in fabricating false evidence.
Section 193 IPC:
Punishment for False Evidence:
Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any 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 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 as 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 an 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.
Section 193 prescribes punishment for giving false evidence. It may be divided into parts.
The first part lays down the punishment for intentionally giving false evidence or fabricating false evidence in a judicial proceeding, where the person who gives false evidence in the judicial proceedings can get imprisonment up to 7 years and also fine. The second part deals with the punishment for intentionally giving false evidence or fabricating false evidence other than a judicial proceeding where the person has given false evidence in any other matter can get imprisonment up to 3 years and fine.
In Virindar Kumar Satyawadi v State of Punjab, 22 November, 1955 case, the Supreme Court held that when a candidate at an election makes a false declaration on solemn affirmation before a Returning Officer, the offence comes under the second part of Section 193 and not in the first part.
In Pritish v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 1 SCC 253 case, a three- Judge Bench of the Supreme Court has even gone to the extent of holding that the proceedings under Section 340 of CrPC can be successfully invoked even without a preliminary inquiry since the whole purpose of the inquiry is only to decide whether it is expedient in the interests of justice to inquire into the offence which appears to have been committed.
In K.T.M.S.Mohd. vs. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 1831 case, the Court held that the mere fact that a deponent has made contradictory statements at two different stages in a judicial proceeding is not by itself always sufficient to justify prosecution for perjury, but it must be established that the deponent has intentionally given a false statement or fabricated false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of the judicial proceeding. It is immaterial that the false evidence is relevant or not in relation to the case.
In K.Karunakaran vs. T.V.Eachvri, AIR 1978 SC 290 case the Court held that a false statement is alone not sufficient, intention of the accused must also be present.
In Santokh Singh vs Izhar Hussain, AIR 1973 SC 2190 case, the Court held that a statement on oath falsely supporting a prosecution case against an accused falls under sections 193 and 195 of the Indian Penal Code and not under section 211 of the Indian Penal Code
Conclusion:
Any judicial decision is made on the foundation of the evidences produced before the court and it is made sure by the law makers that this very foundation is fair and true so as to deliver fair and equal justice and to assure this Sections like 191, 192 and 193 of IPC are provided for. Section 191 IPC explains the meaning of giving false evidence and Section 193 IPC explains meaning of fabricating false evidence and Section 193 provides for punishment to the offenders under Section 191 and 192 IPC.