What is giving False Evidence

Subject: Indian Penal Code (IPC)

Assignment: What is giving False Evidence and Fabricating False Evidence

Table of Contents

Page Number
SL No. Particulars
From To
Introduction
 Fundamental Principles of Criminal Law
 Definition of Crime
1. 2 3
 Elements of Crime
 Classifications of Crime (Offences)
 Classification of Crimes under IPC
2. Section 191 - Giving False Evidence
3. Section 192 - Fabricating False Evidence
Distinction between Giving False Evidence' (Section 191) and 'Fabricating False
4.
Evidence' (Sec. 192)
5. Conclusion
6. Bibliography

1
Introduction:
Even since the dawn of human civilization maintenance of peace in society has been a baffling problem. As
Emile Durkheim rightly stated that “even a society which is composed of persons with angelic qualities
would not be free from violations of the norms of that society because different groups have variable and
often incompatible interests which give rise to clash and conflicts eventually resulting in wrongful acts, may
it be a crime or a civil wrong.”1
Historically, the concept of crime and its distinction from a civil wrong emerged much later after the
institution of Kingship and subsequently the State came into existence. The early primitive societies didn’t
recognise any distinction between law of crimes and civil wrong and termed both of them as ‘law of
wrongs’.
Fundamental Principles of Criminal Law
The importance of Criminal law in relation to crime hardly needs to be emphasised. The criminal law
consists of rules for regulating human conduct promulgated by State and are uniformly applicable to all
persons and is enforced by punishment. It seeks to protect society against the lawbreakers, and therefore,
it is a means of attainment of criminal justice should be treated as an end itself.
In order to be effective, criminal law must have the following four important characteristics:
1. Politicality: This implies that only the implication of rules of criminal law made by the State are
treated as crimes punishable under the law.
2. Specificity: This implies that the acts that are to be treated as crime are strictly defined in specific
terms.
3. Uniformity: This suggests that its uniform application throughout the country without any
discrimination thus ensuring even-handed justice to all alike.
4. Penal Sanction: This means the Penal sanction imposed under the law of crimes has deterrent effect
not only on criminals but on members of the society as a whole and warns them to keep away from
crimes.
Definition of Crime
 According to Blackstone, “an act in violation of public law or public rights and duties due to the
whole community, considered as a community, in its social aggregate capacity”.2
 According to Austin, ‘crime’ is a wrong which is pursued at the discretion of the injured party and his
representatives as a civil injury, a wrong which is pursued by the sovereign or his subordinates as
crime.
 According to Kenny, “crimes are wrongs whose sanction is punitive and is no way remissible by any
private person, but is remissible by Clown alone, if remissible at all”.3
From the foregoing definitions, it may be said that a crime is a wrong to society involving breach of law,
which has criminal consequences attached to it, i.e., prosecution by the State in the criminal court and the
possibility of punishment being imposed on the wrongdoer.
It must be stated that like any other law, the concept of crime is dynamic in nature as it keeps on changing
with changes in social norms, values, and perceptions about wrongful human conduct in a given society. 4
1
Dr N. V. Paranjape: “Law of Torts” (4th Edition, 2022), P No. 3
2
Blackstone: Commentaries on Law of England 4.
3
Kenny: Outlines of Criminal Law (11th Edition), P No. 16
4
Dr N.V Paranjape: “Indian Penal Code”, Central Law Publications (5th Edition, 2023), P No. 20
2
Elements of Crime5
The function of Criminal law is to prevent the incidence of crime and reprimand the offender. Therefore, it is
necessary to analyse the nature and contents of a crime. Below are some of the elements that every criminal act
must contain in order to be reckoned as crime:
1. Actus Reus – There should be an overt act (actus) or omission.
2. Mens Rea – Act should have been done with criminal intent.
3. Prohibited act – The act or omission, as the case may be, should be a prohibited conduct under the
existing law of crimes.
4. Punishment – It should carry with it some kind of sanction by way of punishment.
5. Burden of Proof – The burden of proof in a criminal case lies on the prosecution i.e., State.
6. Interpretation of penal statutes – Penal statutes must be interpreted strictly, with no extension of
meaning of the words used in penal statute.
7. Presumption of innocence – A person is believed to be innocent until found guilty.
8. The maxim nullum crimen sine lege nulla poena sine lege – The first part of this maxim means that
no one is held criminally liable, unless he has done act which is expressly prohibited or forbidden by
law. The second part of the maxim means that no one can be punished for an act unless it is made
punishable under the existing criminal law.
9. Mistake of fact and mistake of law – Mistake may be either of law or of fact. The term ‘mistake’
implies misapprehension or misunderstanding about the truth resulting in some act or omission
done or suffered erroneously by one or both the parties.
Classification of Crimes (Offences)
1. Legal Crimes
2. Political Crimes
3. Economic Crimes
4. Social Crimes
5. Socio-economic Crimes
6. Cyber Crimes
7. Miscellaneous Crimes
Classification of Crimes under IPC
1. Offences against the State (Secs. 121 – 130).
2. Offences against Public Tranquillity (Secs. 141 – 160).
3. Offences relating to Public Servants (Secs. 161 – 171).
4. Offences affecting Public health, safety, convenience, decency, and morality (Secs. 268 – 294-A).
5. Offences relating to religion (Secs. 295 - 298)
6. Offences against person (Secs. 299 – 377)
7. Offences against property (Secs. 378 – 462)
8. Offences relating to Documents (Secs. 463 – 477-A)
9. Offences relating to Marriage (Secs. 493 – 498-A)
10. Offences relating to defamation (Secs. 499 – 502)
11. Offences of criminal intimidation, insult, and annoyance (Secs. 503 – 501)
Sections 191 to 200 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), mainly focuses on offences and its punishments for Giving
or Fabricating of False evidence and these sections can be further categorised as below:6

5
Ibid
6
Supra Note – 5, P No. 330
3
 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).

Section 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.”
Explanations:
1. A statement is within the meaning of this section whether it is made verbally or otherwise.
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.
Illustration:
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.
Comments:
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.7
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: In the case of Rameshwar Kalyan Singh v. State of
Rajasthan,8 the Supreme Court highlighted the significance of oath or affirmation and also 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. Thus, an oath binds a person to state the truth.
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

7
Halsbury's Law of England (3rd Edition) Vol. 10, P No. 633
8
AIR 1952 SC 54.
4
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,9 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,10 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 evidence.
Nobody should be permitted to indulge in immoral acts like perjury, prevarication, and motivated
falsehoods in the judicial proceedings and if someone does so, it must be dealt with appropriately. In case
the recourse to a false plea is taken with an oblique motive, it would definitely hinder, hamper, or impede
the flow of justice and prevent the courts from performing their legal duties.11
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.
When two contradictory statements are made: 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 Ramachandran v. State,12 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,13 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

9
AIR 2001 SC 2004.
10
2004 Cri LJ 493 (Kant).
11
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, “The Indian Penal Code” 34th Edition, 2014, P No. 355
12
1968 Cri LJ 1423 (SC)
13
1963 Cri LJ 494 (AP)
5
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 India14 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."

Section 192 - Fabricating False Evidence

“Whoever causes any circumstance to exist or 15[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 causing any circumstance to exist; or
(2) by making any false entry in a book or record or an electronic 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.16
In Afzal v. State of Haryana,17 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 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
14
AIR 1992 SC 1831
15
Subs by Act 21 of 2000, sec 91 and Sch 1, for certain words (w.e.f. 17-10-2000)
16
Supra – Note 6, P No. 334
17
AIR 1996 SC 2326
6
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.,18 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.
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.19

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.

18
AIR 1966 SC 523
19
Supra - Note 16, P No. 335
7
Conclusion:
A person who fabricates evidence or provides false testimony will be penalised in accordance with the
terms set forth in the IPC, 1860. We can infer that Section 191 and Section 192 are distinct from one
another. The offender who coerces, threatens, or promises to provide false testimony will be punished. It
should be highlighted that the individual providing testimony must be aware of or firmly believe that what
they are saying is true.
In conclusion, false evidence is the information that is provided to influence the outcome of the truth in a
legal proceeding. False evidence can be produced, forged, or tainted; it is up to the party using it to
establish where it is being used. The goal of providing false testimony is to secure a conviction and convict
the innocent. As a result of the widespread use of fabricated evidence and witnesses, the penalties
outlined in these clauses need to be strengthened.

Bibliography:
Books:
1. Dr Paranjape N. V.: “Law of Torts” (4th Edition, 2022), P No. 3
2. Dr Paranjape N.V: “Indian Penal Code”, Central Law Publications (5th Edition, 2023), P No. 20
3. Kenny: Outlines of Criminal Law (11th Edition), P No. 16
4. Blackstone: Commentaries on Law of England 4.
5. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 34th Edition, 2014
6. Halsbury's Law of England (3rd Edition) Vol No. 10, P No. 633