Giving false evidence : (Sn. 191)
According to Sn. 191 'giving false evidence' is an offence punishable under Indian Penal Code.
In English Law according to Kenny this is perjury. If a person in a judicial proceeding, before a competent court, gives false evidence or evidence which he knows to be false he is guilty of perjury. But,, he must have stated this under oath and on matters material to the trial.
Sn. 191, defines giving false evidence. Here the accused must be legally bound by an oath to state the truth or to make a declaration. He must make a false statement and must know that it is false or that it is not true. The statement may be made either orally or in writing. It amounts to false evidence,
(i) if a person says that he believes a thing which he does not believe (ii) if he states that he knows a thing which he does not believe, or (iii) if he states that he knows a thing which he does not know. Ranjit Singh V. State of Pepsu : The facts were that the accused Police Officer filed an affidavit, stating that Ranjit was never arrested and illegally detailed in custody. The Supreme court held that as his statements were found to be false the accused had committed an offence under this section.
Eg. i) A, under an oath stated that he believes that a signature to be in the handwriting of Z, knowing fully well that it is not so. This is false evidence.
ii) A, under an oath tells the court that Z was not present at a particular place on a particular day. He knows that this is not true. This is false evidence.
iii) A, under an oath, translates a statement knowing that the translation was false. Making false affidavit, amounts to giving false evidence. Sn. 193 provides for punishment.
Fabricating false evidence : Sn. 192.
This is an offence under l.P.C. The essentials are three:
i) The accused must cause a circumstance to exist, or make a false entry in any book or record or make any false document.
ii) He must do so with the intention that it may appear in evi- dence in any court or tribunal.
iii) The intention must be that the circumstance may cause an erroneous (bad) opinion in the proceedings.
E.g.: i) A puts jewels into Z's box with an intention that Z may be convicted of the offence of theft. A has fabricated false evidence.
ii) A makes a false entry in his shop book for the purpose of using it in a criminal case.
The leading cases :
i) Rameswar Rai V. State : Here A the accused had stolen railway pins and kept in the house of Z. Z was punished for theft. A was held guilty
ii) Dutt V. State of U. P. : Here the accused was an expert witness. He had fabricated a London Diploma Certificate to show he was an expert. Held guilty
iii) Umrao V. State: The witness had made two contradictory statements intentionally it was held he was guilty of giving false evidence.