CHAPTER XI

OF FALSE EVIDENCE AND OFFENCES

AGAINST PUBLIC JUSTICE
This chapter comprises 39 sections i.e., Sections 191 to 229 and the offences contained in
these sections may broadly be categorised into two groups as follows :-
(1) Giving or
fabricating false evidence (Sections 191-200). This
includes :—
(i) Giving false evidence (Sec. 191) and fabricating false evidence
(Sec. 192).
(ii)
Punishment for the above (Sec. 193).
(iii)
Aggravated forms of both the above (Secs. 194-195).
(iV)
Offences punishable in the same way as giving or fabricating false evidence (Secs. 196-
200).
(2) Offences against Public Justice (Secs. 201-229). These include :—
(i) Causing disappearance of evidence (Secs. 201-204).
(i) False personation (Secs. 205 and 229). (ili) Abuse of
process of Court of Justice (Secs. 206-210).
(iv)
False charge of an offence (Sec. 211). (v)
Screening or harbouring offenders (Secs. 201, 212-215, 215, 216-A).
(vi)
Offences against justice by Public Servants (Secs. 217-223 and 225-A).
(vii)
Resisting the law (Secs. 224, 225 and 225-B). (viii) Violation of conditions of remission
(Sec. 227). (ix) Contempt of Court (Sec. 228).
191. 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.
( 330 )

S. 191 ]
OF FALSE EVIDENCE AND OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC JUSTICE
331
Illustrations
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
Comment
The offence of giving false evidence is called 'perjury' under the English Perjury Act, 1911.
In Halsbury's Laws of England, perjury has been defined as a statement made by a person
who is lawfully sworn as a witness or an interpreter in a judicial proceeding which he
knows to be materially false or does not believe it to be true.
The offence of giving false evidence or perjury, as defined in Section 191 has the following
essential ingredients :-
1. a false statement made by a person;
2. who is legally bound by an oath or;
3. by an express provision of law;
4. he must make a statement which he knows or believes to be false or believes to be
not true.
In short, the essential prerequisites of the section are that the person making the false
statement must be under a legal obligation to state the truth and he must know or believe
in its falsity.

Legally bound by law or by express provision of law.— Section 51 of the Indian Penal Code
defines 'Oath' which means a solemn affirmation substituted by law for an oath made by a
person before a Court of justice to be used as evidence. Similarly, Section 8 of the Oaths
Act, 1969 requires every person giving evidence before any Court is to state the 'truth, the
whole truth and nothing but truth'.
in Rameshiantkayan singi State of Rajasthan ostived that tre eoust
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. Thus an oath binds a person to state
the truth.
1. Halsbury's Law of England 3rd Ed.) Vol. 10, p. 633.
2. AIR 1952 SC 54.
3. Ranjit Pal v. State of PEPSU, AIR 1959 SC 843; C.P. Vadra v. State, 1966 Cri LJ 825
(All).

[ S. 191
332
INDIAN PENAL CODE
Any irregularity or omission in the administration of oath cannot invalidate the proceeding
or render any evidence invalid. Even if the competent authority fails to administer oath to
the deponent or commits an irregularity in administering oath, it does not affect the
liability of the deponent to speak the truth. However, if the proceeding itself is without
jurisdiction or not authorised or sanctioned by law, then the provision of this section would
not be applicable?'
Where a person is not legally bound by an oath or by express provision of law to state the
truth, he cannot be held guilty of giving false evidence under Section 193 or using evidence
known to be false under Section 196, IPC. Thus, an advocate cannot be held liable under
this section for not stating the truth.? However, where the Advocate himself is a petitioner
or a deponent, he would be bound by an oath or by express provision of law to speak the
truth failing which he may be held guilty of an offence under Section 191/193, IPC. Thus In
re, Advocate R. Kuruppan, the appellant claiming himself as the President of the Madras
High Court Bar Association filed a Quo Warranto petition against the then Chief Justice of
India Dr. A.S. Anand alleging that he had completed the age of his retirement on 31st
October, 1999 and therefore, had no constitutional right to continue on the post of C.J.I.
after that date.
The petitioner had filed an affidavit before the Supreme Court in this regard. The
controversy regarding date of birth of Justice Anand had been raised in 1991 when the
matter was referred to the Secretariat of the President of India, which after inquiry found
the date of birth to be correct and issued order to this effect on 16th May, 1991 and the
matter had been closed. In view of these facts the affidavit filed by the petitioner was
found to contain false statement, hence he was sentenced to imprisonment for six months
under Section 191/193, IPC. The petitioner contended that he came to know about the
notification of 1991 issued by the President of India only on December 2, 2000 and did not
know it prior to this date, hence he was not guilty of knowingly giving or making
statement. However, the Supreme Court dismissed this plea of the petitioner and
maintained his conviction under Section 191, IPC.
In Advocate General, High Court of Karnataka v. Chidambara,* a writ appeal for dismissing
the order on a compromise petition alleged to have been signed by the impersonating
respondents was before the Court for decision. The accused had admitted on oath that
some persons had impersonated the real contestant respondents in the writ appeal.
Thereafter, in a suo motu proceeding for contempt of Court, the accused admitted that he
had given false statement in the course of those proceedings when his statement was
recorded. The High Court of Karnataka found the accused guilty of an offence under
Section 191 for giving false evid nce.
Where a matter is being
heard by a Court which has no jurisdiction to
hear the case, false statement made during the course of
does not attract the provisions of Section 191 of the Code such proceedings
1. U. Mistir Wallang v. Ka Ephraben, AIR 1954 Assam 259.
2. Syed Ali Eba Rizvi v. State, AIR 1971 All 107.
3. AIR 2001 SC 2004.
4. 2004 Cri LJ 493 (Kant).
5. Summat Prasad v. Emperor, AIR 1942 All 42.
S

OF FALSE EVIDENCE AND OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC JUSTICE

333
Where two contradictory statements are made
In many cases the statements made by a deponent in course of trial proceedings are
contradictory and therefore one of them is bound to be false.
In such cases, it is not always necessary that the person making such contradictory
statements will be held guilty under Section 191. It is a common occurrence that a person
makes one statement to police and retracts the same before the Court by giving just the
opposite of it during trials. Similarly, where a person makes a confessional statement
under Section 164, Cr. P.C. but later retracts it in course of trial, in fact he could be
charged of giving false evidence under Section 191, but the Supreme Court in Balak Ram v.
State, has held that such evidence must be approached with caution and all efforts should
be made that which of the two contradictory statements, could be true.
In re, Arjunappa,? the Andhra Pradesh High Court observed, that "to prosecute a man who
has resiled from a false statement made under Section
164 Cr. P.C. is to encourage him in the belief that it pays to tell a lie and to stick to it." The
Court held that it is far better that a man escapes punishment for having made a false
statement under Section 164 rather than to encourage him to believe that it pays to tell a
lie and stick to it. In the instant case, it was not proved that the earlier statements of the
witnesses recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. were true and those given before the
Magistrate in course of enquiry were false and therefore, the offence of perjury under
Section 191, IPC was not proved.
Reiterating the same view, the Supreme Court in KTMS Mohd. v. Union of India? held that,
"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 under
Section 191/193, IPC, but it must be established that the deponent has intentionally given a
false statement."
In Ismail Khan v. State,* it has been held that in order to convict a person for perjury under
Section 191, IPC, when he makes two contradictory statements at two different stages of
judicial proceedings, both, the earlier as well as the subsequent statements must have
been made on oath and obviously, should be opposed to each other.
False statement made by accused.-Though Section 191, IPC relating to perjury as an
offence opens with the word "whosoever", which means "every person", but the position of
an "accused" facing trial is different in this regard because of the constitutional protection
available to him under Article 20(3) of the Constitution which inter alia, says that an
accused cannot be compelled to make any statement on oath. Section 313 (3) of Cr. P.C.
also stipulates that no oath shall be administered to an accused when he is examined
before the Court nor shall he be liable to punishment if he refuses to answer any question
or gives false answer thereof.
Illegality of trial.-There may be cases where false evidence may have been given in course
of a trial, but the trial proceedings are annulled for want
1. 1974 Cri LJ 1488 (SC); See also Ramchandran v. State, 1968 Cri LJ 1423 (SC).

[S. 192
334
INDIAN PENAL CODE
of sanction to prosecute, or a retrial is ordered due to some irregularity in the original trial.
In such a case, can the accused who gave false statement be held liable. Earlier, the
Calcutta' and Madras? High Court held that the accused is liable, but the Bombay High
Court held a contrary view in this regard. However, this controversy has been settled once
for all by the Supreme Court in its decision in Dr. S.P. Kohli v. High Court of Punjab and
Haryana," wherein it was held that the Court should prosecute an accused for giving false
evidence only when such evidence was given deliberately on a substantial matter on the
basis of which a court may pass an order of conviction.
194 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
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
Comment
The section defines the offence of fabricating false evidence. This offence can be
committed in three ways as enumerated in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the section, namely,
(1) by aur ear it ums aneonic record; and (3) by preparing a document containing a false
statement. The intention of the fabricator should be that such a thing or document should
make a person to form an erroneous opinion in a judicial proceeding or proceeding before a
public servant or an arbitrator etc.
In Afzal v. State of Haryana, the railway police were in search of a person named Rahim
Khan for offences of fraud and forgery of the railway receipts, cheating and
misappropriation. Since the said Rahim Khan was evading arrest, the investigating team
took away two minor boys one of whom was Rahim
1. Emperor v. Badesar Mandal, (1884) 10 Cal 604.
2. Emperor v. Virasami, (1896) 19 Mad 375.
3. Ravji Taju v. Emperor, (1871) 8 Bom H.C.
4. AIR 1978 SC 1753.
5. Subs, by Act 21 of 2000, sec. 91 and Sch. I, for certain words (w.e.f. 17-10-2000).
6. AIR 1996 SC 2326.

S. 192 ]
OF FALSE EVIDENCE AND OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC JUSTICE
335
Khan's son and kept them under wrongful confinement in different places. The police put a
condition that these boys would be released only after Rahim Khan surrendered before the
police. Thereupon, a habeas corpus petition was filed in the Supreme Court under Article
32 of the Constitution. The Superintendent of Police and the Sub-Inspector were asked to
file counter affidavits in the matter. Both of them in the affidavit filed by them denied the
allegation of wrongful confinement and custody of the said boys. The Superintendent of
Police who was not available in Delhi on the relevant date, asked his subordinate officer to
forge his signatures in the counter affidavit. The C.B.I. on inquiry found that the statements
contained in counter affidavits of both the police officers denying the custody of the said
boys were false and the signature of Superintendent police in his counter-affidavit were
forged one. Both the police officers were convicted of an offence under Sections 192 and
193, IPC. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Superintendent of Police who was
sentenced to one year R.I. and that of the Sub-Inspector, who was sentenced to six
month's R.I. reprimanding the police officers for their conduct.

In the case of Dr. S. Dutt v. State of U.P., the accused had deposed as an expert in
criminology holding a diploma from the Imperial College of Science and Technology,
London. During his examination as an expert he was asked to produce his certificate,
which was found to be false. He was held guilty of an offence under Sections 192 and 196,
IPC as he had produced the document before the Court intending that the Court may form
erroneous opinion about him as an expert in criminology which he in fact was not.
Distinction between forgery and fabricating false evidence
The Supreme Court in Baban Singh v. Jagdish Singh,? held that by swearing a false
affidavit, the accused makes himself prima facie liable under Section 193 read with
Sections 191 and 192 of IPC. Pointing out the distinction between forgery and fabricating
false record, the Court in this case observed that even though the offences of forgery and
fabricating false evidence sometimes may have some common elements, but they are
distinct. The offence of forgery consists in making false documents, or false entries but
when these documents or entries are intended to be used in judicial proceedings or in
proceedings before a public servant or an arbitrator, so as to cause an erroneous opinion
to be formed before the judge, public servant or arbitrator, as the case may be, which is
likely to affect the result of the proceedings, it constitutes an offence of fabricating false
evidence. In other words, fabricating false evidence is a specific specie of forgery and the
term is used in context of judicial proceedings.
In Babulal v. State, the Supreme Court held that making false documents, or false entries
in a book or record, may amount to forgery if other elements of that offence are present,
but when these false documents or entries are intended to be used particularly in a judicial
proceeding or in a proceeding before a public servant or an arbitrator, leading to
entertaining an erroneous opinion touching a point material to the result of the proceeding,
the offence of fabricating false evidence under Section 192 is committed.
1. AIR 1966 SC 523.
2. AIR 1967 SC 68,
3. AIR 1964 SC 725.

INDIAN PENAL CODE

336
Distinction between Giving False Evidence' (Section 191) and
'Fabricating False Evidence' (Sec. 192)
Though both the offences, namely, giving false evidence (Sec. 191) and fabricating false
evidence (Sec. 192) are relating to giving of evidence and mens rea is a common element
required for both, there is a distinction between the two, which may be stated as follows:-
1. In case of giving false evidence, only general intention is sufficient, whereas in
fabricating false evidence, particular intention is necessary.
2. Fabrication under Section 192 must relate to some point material to the
proceedings whereas it is not necessary in case of giving false evidence.
3. A charge of fabricating false evidence under Section 192 is more serious and graver
as compared to giving false evidence under Section 191, in the sense that a person
under the former charge may incur penalty even though no injury has been caused
to any person thereby.
4. In fabrication of false evidence (Sec. 192) the effect thereof should lead the Court
or officer concerned to form an erroneous opinion touching some material point, but
it is immaterial in case of giving false evidence.
5. False evidence is given by a person who is bound by oath or an affirmation,
whereas there is no such pre-condition in case of fabrication of false evidence
under Section 192, IPC.
6. Under Section 191, a proceeding, judicial or non-judicial must be pending or in
existence at the time when the offence is committed, but under Section 192 it is
enough if there is a reasonable possibility of commencement of such proceeding,
 keeping in view the circumstances of the case and the fabricated evidence is
intended to be used in such a proceeding.
193. Punishment for false evidence.-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 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
1. The words "or before a Military Court of Request" omitted by Act 13 of 1889, sec. 2 and
Sch.

S. 193 ]
OF FALSE EVIDENCE AND OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC JUSTICE
337
be false. As this enquiry is a stage of 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 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 judicial proceeding, A has given false evidence.
Comment
This section provides punishment for the offences committed under Sections 191 and 192,
IPC. The penalty prescribed in Para 1 of this section is imposable for an offence of giving
false evidence committed under Section
191 Whereas the penalty provided in Para 2 of the section relates to offence of fabricating
false evidence. Explanation I appended to the section makes it clear that a trial before a
Court-martial is a judicial proceeding. The second explanation seeks to clarify that an
investigation directed by law preliminary to a proceeding will be treated as a judicial
proceeding even though such investigation may not take place by a Court of Justice.
According to the third explanation, given in the section, an investigation directed by a
Court of justice in accordance with the law is a stage of judicial proceeding even though
such investigation has not taken place before a law Court.
The Supreme Court in Virender Kumar Satyavadi v. State,' observed that a false
declaration made on a solemn affirmation before a returning officer is punishable under
second part of Section 193 and not under the first part. The Court further stated that when
a defendant or a plaintiff comes on to the witness-box, he is bound to take an oath to state
the truth and he cannot be allowed to say that he would have refrained to come to the
witness box had he known that he will have to make statements on oath.?
The Supreme Court in a forgery case held that abetment of forgery by making false
documents with the intention of using the same in a suit, but ultimately not using it, is not
punishable under Section 193, IPC, instead it is punishable under Section 467 and Section
114 of the Code. A false statement made on oath supporting the prosecution version
against an accused is punishable under Section 193 read with Section 195 and not under
Section 211 of IPC.4
The High Court of Bombay, in Pravin Chand v. Ibrahim Mohd., held that where a false
statement on the part of a person has led to a charge against him under Section 193 of
IPC, it does not mean that no charge for defamation under Section 500 of the Code can be
made against him on the basis of the same statement. In other words, he may also be
charged under Section 500 IPC.
1. AIR 1956 SC 153.
2. Ranjeet Singh v. State, 1959 Cri LJ 1124 (SC).
3. State v. Hema Reddy, AIR 1981 SC 1417.
4. Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain, AIR 1973 SC 2190.
5. 1987 Cri LJ 1795 (Bom).

338
INDIAN PENAL CODE
[ S. 193
In Chandrapal Singh v. Maharaj Singh,' the Apex Court ruled that rejection of evidence by a
Court by itself is not a sufficient ground to conclude that the rejected evidence was
necessarily false. In the instant case, the advocate who had lost in both the Courts below
in a Rent Control Case, moved the criminal Court against the appellant under Section 193
read with Sections 199 and 201, IPC. The Supreme Court held that the case could not be
entertained as it amounts to abuse of process of law.
In Afzal v. State of Haryana, the Sub-Inspector was accused of taking delivery of counter-
affidavit from the standing counsel for being signed by the Superintendent of Police so that
it could be filed in the Supreme Court.
On being refused by the Counsel, the S.I. contacted the Superintendent who directed him
to forge his signature and the S.I. did accordingly. That is, he forged the signature of the
Superintendent of Police on the counter-affidavit.
The said counter-affidavit contained false averments. Both the police officials were held
guilty of an offence under Section 193 and Superintendent of Police for abetting the S.I. to
make the former's forged signatures. They were sentenced to one year and six months
rigorous imprisonment respectively.
In Agnuru Jaya Ramlu, Kurnul v. Mohd. Afzal Mian & others, the accused filed a civil appeal
in the High Court for enhancement of amount of compensation under the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988. The claimants had not come before the Court with clean hands as revealed from
the facts. The accident was caused by their own gross negligence which was more than
50%. He claimed in collusion with one of his friend who was travelling with him in the
accident-met car and the investigation officer had furnished false claim and given false
evidence. The High Court found all the three i.e., the claimant, his friend and investigation
officer guilty of offence under Sections 191/192 and therefore, directed the Registrar
(judicial) to file a criminal complaint against all the three persons in the Magistrate's Court.
In Gulshan Rai Nagpal v. Principal, Government Law College," the accused made a
statement on oath in a writ petition supported by an affidavit that timings of the law
college were changed by the principal arbitrarily, whereas the fact was the said change
was made by the principal pursuant to a representation received from a majority of law
students and that the principal had the power to change the timings. The High Court of
Sikkim held that the accused was guilty of deliberately making a false statement before
the Court in a judicial proceeding particularly, in view of the fact that he himself was one
of the students who had signed the representation making a request for change of timings
of the college.
In Ibrahim Saheb Imam Saheb Mulla v. State of Kranataka, the election to the post of
President of Town Panchayat was stayed by an interim order of the Court. It turned out
that the said stay order was obtained by using forged and fabricated documents by
swearing in the affidavit that they were true and genuine certified copies. The petitioners
who made use of these forged documents were held guilty of an offence under Section 193,
IPC.
Where the offence under Section 193, IPC was tried as a summons case
1. AIR 1982 SC 1238.
2. 1996 Cri LJ 1679 (SC).
3. AIR 2005 (NOC) 198 (AP).
4. 2002 Cri LJ 171 (Sikkim).
5. 2006 Cri LJ 2738.

S. 194 ]
OF FALSE EVIDENCE AND OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC JUSTICE
339
and not as a warrant case, it was held the whole trial deserved to be quashed because the
benefit available under a warrant case were not available to the accused in the instant
case.'
It must, however, be stated as mandated by Section 195(1)(b)(i) of Cr.
P.C., that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 193 to
196, 199, 200, 205 to 211 and 228, IPC when such offence is alleged to have been
committed in relation to any proceeding in any Court, except on a complaint in writing of
that Court or some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. The non-compliance
with this condition would render the whole trial vitiated.?
The offence under this
section is non-cognizable, bailable and
non-compoundable, and is triable by Court of Session, Metropolitan Magistrate or
Magistrate of the First Class.
194. Giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of capital
offence.-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 Iby the law for the time being in force in [Indial, shall be punished with
imprisonment for lifel 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.
Comment
This section deals with an aggravated form of offence of giving or fabricating false
evidence which is punishable under Section 193, IPC.
According to this section, where an accused gives false or fabricated evidence against
someone with the intention to cause that person to be convicted for a capital offence, he
shall be guilty of an offence under this section, which is punishable with imprisonment for
life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also
be liable to fine.
The second part of Section 194 provides death penalty for an accused where an innocent
person has been convicted and executed death sentence as a consequence of false
evidence given by the accused.
In Darshan Singh v. State,' the Court of Sessions convicted the accused persons for murder
of a man. During the pendency of the appeal the allegedly murdered man presented himself
before the High Court, which obviously resulted into acquittal of the accused (appellants).
The Police Inspector who had investigated the case along with two Sarpanchas, and other
prosecution witnesses were prosecuted under Section 194, IPC read with Section 340 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
1. R. Venkat Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1992 Cri LJ 414 (AP).
2. Lalji Haridas v. State, AIR 1964 SC 1154; C.K. Jha v. State, 1975 Cri LJ 1939 (Pat);
Dr. S.
Dutt v. State, 1966 Cri LJ 459 (SC).
3. Subs, by the A.O. 1948, for "by the law of British India or England".
4. Subs. by Act 3 of 1951, sec. 3 and Sch., for "the States".
5. Subs. by Act 26 of 1955, sec. 117 and Sch., for "transportation for life" (w.e.f. 1-1-
1956).
6. 1985 Cri LJ (NOC) 71 (P&H).

340
INDIAN PENAL CODE
10. 100
195. Giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of offence
punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment.-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 Iby the law for the time
in force
"Indial] 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 dacoity. The punishment of dacoity is imprisonment for lifel, or rigorous
imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, with or without fine. A, therefore,
is liable to limprisonment for life] or imprisonment with or without fine.
Comment
This section also deals with an aggravated form of the offence under Section 193 though it
is less serious than the offence under Section 194, IPC.
The section provides penalty for giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure
conviction of a person for an offence which is punishable with imprisonment for life.
In the case of R. Venkat Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, it has been held that a Tribunal
constituted for conducting disciplinary proceedings is not a 'Court' within the meaning of
this section although some of the functions of the Tribunal are akin to that of a Court of
Justice.
It has been held by the Supreme Court in Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain,' the accused
(Santokh Singh) who gave false evidence against Izhar Hussain by falsely identifying him in
an identification parade, thus supporting the prosecution case, was guilty of an offence
under Sections 193 and 195, IPC. However, a person who has reason to believe that he
cannot survive any more, in his dying declaration, deliberately implicates another for
committing murder, but eventually he survives, cannot be held liable under Section 194,
IPC.
Both the sections, namely, Section 193 as well as Section 195 become operative when
conviction of an innocent person is procured by giving false evidence against him."
A person who burns his own house to implicate another person, would not be convicted
under this section, but he should be convicted under Section 211, IPC.
The offence under this section is non-cognizable, non-bailable and
1. Subs. by the A.O. 1948 for "by the Law of British India or England".
2. Subs, by Act 3 of 1951, sec. 3 and Sch., for "the States".
 3. Subs. by Act 26 of 1955, sec. 117 and Sch., for "transportation for life" (w.e.f. 1-1-
1956).
4. Subs. by Act 26 of 1955, sec. 117 and Sch., for "transportation for life" (w.e.f. 1-1-
1956).
5. 1992 Cri LJ 414 (AP).
6. AIR 1973 SC 2190.
7. Banti Pande v. Emperor, AIR 1930 Pat. 550.
8. Emperor v. Ram Nana Hagavne, AIR 1922 Bom 99. See also Sachidanand Singh v.
State of Bihar & another, AIR 1998 SC 1121; Ram Dhan v. State of U.P. & another,
AIR 2012 SC 2513 etc.
9. Rameshwar Rai v. Emperor, (1877) 1 All 379.

S. 196 ]
OF FALSE EVIDENCE AND OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC JUSTICE
341
non-compoundable, and is triable by Court of Session.
'(195-A [Threatening any person to give false evidence].-Whoever threatens another with
any injury to his person, reputation or property or to the person or reputation of any one in
whom that person is interested, with intent to cause that person to give false evidence
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
seven years, or with fine, or with both;
and if innocent person is convicted and sentenced in consequence of such false evidence,
with death or imprisonment for more than seven years, the person who threatens shall be
punished with the same punishment and sentence in the same manner and to the same
extent such innocent person is punished and sentenced.]
Comment
This new section 195-A has been inserted in the Code by Act 2 of 2006, Section 2 with
effect from 16th April, 2006. The offence under this section is cognizable, non-bailable,
triable by the Court by which offence of giving false evidence is triable and is non-
compoundable.
196. Using evidence known to be false.-Whoever corruptly uses or attempts to use as true
or genuine evidence any evidence which he knows to be false or fabricated, shall be
punished in the same manner as if he gave or fabricated false evidence.
Comment
This section should be read with Sections 191 and 192 because it can only apply to the use
of evidence which was a false evidence under Section 191 or fabricated evidence under
Section 192. It therefore, follows that in the absence of knowledge that the evidence was
false or fabricated, this section does not apply. It is for the prosecution to prove that the
accused used or made an attempt to use the false or fabricated evidence corruptly as true
or genuine evidence. The word 'corruptly' used in this section implies something done with
the intent of gaining some unfair advantage which is inconsistent with one's own duty or
with the rights of others.
In S. Dutt v. State of U.P., the accused was called to depose as an expert.
When asked to prove his credentials as an expert, he produced a diploma certificate in
criminology alleged to have been issued by the Imperial College of Science and
Technology, London, in the subject of criminology. The certificate was found to be false.
The question for consideration before the Supreme Court was whether the conduct of the
accused in producing a forged certificate on the direction of the Court could be termed as
'dishonesty' or
'fraudulently? The Court held the conduct of the accused could neither be termed
'dishonestly' nor 'fraudulently', it would be covered under the term
'corruptly' and therefore, the accused should be convicted under Section 196 and not
Section 465 or 471 of I.P.C. The Court held that the word 'corrupt' has a wider import than
that of 'dishonestly' or 'fraudulently'.
In Emperor v. Rama Nana Hagaone, the accused in order to save himself
1. Inserted by Act 2 of 2006, sec. 2 (w.e.f. 16-4-2006).
2. Corrected vide Corrigendum, dated 3rd March, 2006.
3. 1966 Cri LJ 459 (SC).
4. (1921) 23 Bom LR 987.

342
INDIAN PENAL CODE
[ S. 197
from the charge of assault, tried to show that he was not at the spot of crime at the
relevant time. In order to prove this, he produced the receipt issued by the officer of the
Cattle Pond along with the said officer before the Court as evidence. Rejecting the plea,
the Court convicted the accused and the officer of the Cattle Pond for giving false
evidence corruptly because he tried to use a false receipt to appear as a genuine evidence
and their conviction under Section 196, IPC was held to be in order.
197. Issuing or signing false certificate.-Whoever issues or signs any certificate required by
law to be given or signed, or relating to any fact of which such certificate is by law
admissible in evidence, knowing or believing that such certificate is false in any material
point, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence.
Comment
This section makes the issuing or signing of a false certificate an offence.
Mens rea or knowledge or belief that such certificate is false is the main ingredient of this
offence. The certificate issued or signed must be one which is required by law to be given
or must be one which is admissible in evidence.
In
Prafulla Kumar v. Emperor, the Calcutta High Court held that the medical certificates
issued by medical practitioners or character certificates do not fall within the category of
certificates 'required by law' and therefore, issuance of a false medical certificate does not
render a person liable under Section 197.
The issuance of a false certificate or signing a false certificate is punishable in the same
manner as giving false evidence under Section 191, IPC.
In Mangtu Ram v. State of Rajasthan, the accused Sarpanch issued a false certificate
stating therein that the complainant had died. The said certificate was issued on the basis
of an earlier certificate which was issued by the former Sarpanch in which the complainant
was shown dead. The High Court of Rajasthan allowed the appeal and ordered acquittal of
the accused on the ground that he had issued the certificate in good faith and was not
aware that the certificate was false.
In the case of Haldar Karji v. Dileswar Subudhi,; the accused, a M.L.A. issued a caste
certificate to a student for grant of scholarship at pre-matric level. There was no mention
of caste or tribe in the certificate. The High Court of Orissa held that the provisions of
Section 197 were not attracted in the case because in the absence of any mention about
the caste or tribe, it could not be said that the certificate was false in its material aspect.
198. Using as true a certificate known to be false.— Whoever corruptly uses or attempts to
use any such certificate as a true certificate, knowing the same to be false in any material
point, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence.
Comment
The preceding Section 197 punishes the issuing or signing of a false
1. (1942) 1 Cal 573.
2. 2003 Cri LJ 4733 (Raj.
3. 1989 Cri LJ 629 (Ori).

S. 199 )
OF FALSE EVIDENCE AND OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC JUSTICE
343
certificate whereas the present section provides punishment for using a false certificate
as genuine. The use must be intentional and with the knowledge that the certificate which
is being used as a genuine certificate is in fact a false certificate. Even an attempt to use a
certificate known to be false as genuine is punishable under this section. The use of such
certificate must be for a corrupt purpose. The punishment for using a false certificate as
genuine under this section is the same as for giving false evidence.
The High Court of Gujarat in Hasan Khan v. Kale Khan,' has held a solvency certificate
which is known to be false but used as true or genuine, does not attract the provision of
Section 198 if it has been shown to falling within the ambit of Section 197, IPC.
In Prem Lal v. State of Rajasthan, the accused was held guilty of using a false certificate
issued by head of the institution for obtaining a Government job even though the
headmaster was not authorised to issue such certificate but it was admissible as legal
evidence of facts stated therein.
The offence under this section is non-cognizable, bailable and non-compoundable, and is
triable by Court of Session, Metropolitan Magistrate or Magistrate of the first class.
199. False statement made in declaration which is by law receivable as evidence.-
Whoever, in any declaration made or subscribed by him, which declaration any Court of
Justice, or any public servant or other person, is bound or authorised by law to receive as
evidence of any fact, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or
believes to be false or does not believe to be true, touching any point material to the
object for which the declaration is made or used, shall be punished in the same manner as
if he gave false evidence.
Comment
Making of a false declaration, which is legally receivable in law as evidence of the fact so
declared, is an offence under this section. For the purpose of this section, voluntary
declarations are placed at the same footing as those of compulsory declarations.
Ingredients.-The four essential ingredients of an offence under this section are :
(i) The declaration made should be admissible as evidence in law as proof of the fact
declared therein;
(ii) The declaration so made must be false;
(iii) The person making the declaration must be aware or have knowledge that the
statement made in the declaration is false; and
(iv) The false
statement in the declaration should be regarding a
material point for which the declaration is made.
It is for the prosecution to prove that statement made by the accused in declaration is
false and not for the accused to prove that it is true.
Pointing out the difference between Section 191 and Section 199, IPC,
1972 Guj LJ 414.
 1. (1998) Cri LJ 1430 (Raj); See also Tulsidas Jivabhai Changani v. State of Gujarat,
(2001) 1 SCC
719.
2. M.S. Jaggi v. Registrar, High Court of Orissa, (1983) Cri LJ 1527 (Ori).
3. Baddu Khan v. Emperor, AIR 1928 All 182.

344
INDIAN PENAL CODE
[ S. 199
the Supreme Court in Baban Singh v. Jagdish Singh,' observed that Section 191 applies to
such false statements which are made on oath or under an express provision of law and
bind a person whereas the statements or declarations made under Section 199 are
voluntarily made by the person concerned and are used as evidence by the Court. In the
instant case, the appellants (accused persons) had made a false statement under an oath
in a judicial proceeding and therefore, they should have been prosecuted under Sections
191 and 192 of IPC and not under Section 199 of IPC.
In Chandrapal Singh v. State,' the allegation against the accused was that he had used a
false affidavit before the Rent Control authority, but the complaint did not set out any
averment from the said affidavit which was alleged to be false. Therefore the complaint
was not maintainable and the accused was acquitted by the Court.
In Deputy General Manager Inter-State Bus Terminal v. Sudarshan Kumari,3 the accused
(respondent) Ms. Sudarshan Kumari had filed a false affidavit before the Supreme Court,
which was notarised by a public notary. On enquiry it was found that in fact no notary by
that name existed. The Court convicted Ms. Sudarshan Kumari under Section 199, IPC for
producing fake and false certificates and affidavit and sentenced her to R.I. for six months
and a fine or Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation to undergo a further sentence of six weeks.
In M.S. Jaggi v. Registrar, High Court of Orissa, the accused requested for a transfer of his
case to other court and falsely stated in his affidavit that the judge who was handling his
case and the advocate appearing for the opposite party were old classmates. He was held
guilty of an offence under Section 199, IPC.
In Jyotish Chandra Choudhary v. State of Bihar, the accused was a businessman who filed
a suit for infringement of his trademark registered under the Trademarks Act, 1940. In that
suit he had also impleaded his three minor sons who were business partners, as parties.
Since he did not remember the exact date of birth of all his sons, he sought information
from the school where his sons were studying and on the basis of information so sought,
he filed an affidavit mentioning those dates. Incidentally, one of the minor son's date of
birth was proved to be wrong and the trial court prosecuted the accused holding that it
was not a bona fide mistake. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the suit being related
to infringement of trademark, the age of minor son of the accused was not material to the
outcome of the suit and therefore, accused could not be convicted under Section 199 as
the alleged wrong date of birth did not touch any material point concerning the suit.
In the case of Anil v. Finance-cum-Health Services, the accused was a candidate seeking
admission to the MBBS course. He made a false statement in. his affidavit enclosed with
the admission form submitted to the Director, Health services stating that he belonged to
the reserved category which, in fact, he was not. Held, he could not be held guilty of
offence under Section
1. AIR 1967 SC 68.
2. AIR 1982 SC 1238.
3. AIR 1997 SC 1902.
4. 1983 Cri LJ 1527 (Ori).
5. AIR 1969 SC 7.
6. 1974 Cri LJ 862 (P&H).
199 or Section 200 IPC because it was not a declaration before any Court of Justice; or
public servant or other person authorised by law to receive the document in evidence.
200. Using as true such declaration knowing it to be false.-Whoever corruptly uses or
attempts to use as true any such declaration, knowing the same to be false in any material
point, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence.
Explanation —A declaration which is inadmissible merely upon the ground of some
informality, is a declaration within the meaning of Sections 199 and 200.
Comment
This section is similar to Section 198 with the only difference that this section provides
punishment for using as true or genuine a declaration, which the accused knows to be
false whereas Section 198 punishes using as genuine a certificate which is known to be
false. The use or attempt to use the declaration must be corrupt and the accused must
also have the knowledge that such declaration is false in any material point which may
affect the outcome • of the case.
The explanation appended to the Section makes it clear that a declaration which is
inadmissible merely because of some informality will be a declaration within the meaning
of both the Sections 199 and 200, IPC.
In Gandhi v. Krishna Raj,? the accused filed a declaration in the Court that he could not be
present before the Court because he was out of vity on the relevant date, but it turned out
that he had attended some other Court on that date and also filed an affidavit. A complaint
was filed against the accused under Section 200, IPC. He tried to explain orally the actual
contents of the false affidavit and declaration but the Court was not satisfied with his
contentions and convicted him under Section 199/200 of the Penal Code.