Mere Denial Of Averments In Affidavit Does Not Attract Offence Of Perjury When There Is No Malafide Intention Or Deliberate Attempt: Supreme Court

A Bench of Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice K.V. Viswanathan observed, “We are of the view that, in the present facts, a denial simpliciter cannot meet the threshold, as described in the judgments above, particularly when no malafide intention/deliberate attempt can be understood from the statement made by the appellant in the affidavit. As has already been observed, mere suspicion or inaccurate statements do not attract the offence under the Section. It cannot be disputed that the statements made in the affidavit were only to state his version of events and/or deny the version put forth by the complainant.”

AOR Sweta Rani appeared for the appellant, while AOR Manan Verma represented the respondents.

An FIR was lodged against the appellant under Sections 376 and 504 of the IPC. The complainant had accused the appellant of establishing relations with her under the false pretext of marriage. Following his arrest, the appellant applied for bail, which the trial court initially denied. However, the High Court later granted him bail.

Subsequently, the complainant filed a Bail Cancellation Application before the High Court, alleging that the appellant had made contradictory statements and had submitted a false affidavit during the bail proceedings. While the High Court dismissed the application, it observed that the appellant had intentionally filed a false affidavit and therefore directed the Registrar (Judicial) to lodge a complaint against him under Section 193 of the IPC.

The Supreme Court had to determine whether the contents of the affidavit filed by the appellant constituted an offence under Section 193 of the IPC, which deals with giving false evidence in a judicial proceeding.

The Bench discussed the essential factors which can be said to be sine qua non for the application of Section 193 of the IPC:

• The Court should be of the prima facie opinion that there exists sufficient and reasonable ground to initiate proceedings against the person who has allegedly made a false statement(s);
• Such proceedings should be initiated when doing the same is “expedient in the interests of justice to punish the delinquent” and not merely because of inaccuracy in statements that may be innocent/immaterial;
• There should be “deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance”;
• The Court should be satisfied that there is a reasonable foundation for the charge, with distinct evidence and not mere suspicion;
• Proceedings should be initiated in exceptional circumstances, for instance, when a party has perjured themselves to beneficial orders from the Court

The Court explained that the statements made by the appellant, deemed as an offence commonly known as perjury, was in the nature of denial of the statements made in the affidavits of the complainant.

“We are also of the firm opinion that such statements do not make it expedient in the interest of justice, nor constitute exceptional circumstances in which such Sections may be invoked. Given that these proceedings would constitute an offence, independent of the one for which the appellant is already facing trial, it cannot be unequivocally held that there was deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance,” the Court held.

Consequently, the Court set aside the direction of the High Court regarding the registration of a complaint against the present appellant. “Any proceedings arising therefrom shall stand quashed,” the Court ordered.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal.

Cause Title: James Kunjwal v. State Of Uttarakhand & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 601)

Click here to read/download the Judgment