In its recent decision, James Kunjwal v. State of Uttarakhand, the three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India held that initiating criminal proceedings for perjury requires substantial evidence of deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance and malafide intent.
Regarding the dispute in question, the Apex Court found that the appellant's denials in his affidavit did not meet the required threshold, thereby justifying the quashing of the perjury complaint.
Facts:
James Kunjwal, the appellant, was accused under Sections 376 and 504 IPC, 1860 based on allegations that he established a relationship with the complainant under false pretence of marriage. Albeit, at first denied bail by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nainital, Appellant was eventually granted bail by the High Court of Uttarakhand. The complainant subsequently filed a Bail Cancellation Application, alleging that Appellant had filed a false affidavit. The context being that the complainant submitted in her affidavit that certain events took place, however, the present appellant denied the same in his affidavit with certain explanations. Although the bail cancellation application filed by the complainant was dismissed, the High Court directed the Registrar to file a complaint against Appellant for perjury, prompting him to appeal this decision.
Issues:
- Whether statements made by the appellant in the affidavit constituted an offence under Section 193 IPC, 1860?
- Whether the High Court’s direction to file a complaint against the appellant for perjury was justified and necessary in the interest of justice?
Contentions of the Appellant:
The appellant contended that merely denying allegations in an affidavit does not constitute perjury under Section 193 IPC, 1860. He urged that the High Court was not “bound” to file a complaint under Section 195(1)(b) CrPC, 1973 unless it was deemed expedient in the interest of justice, as clarified in the Constitution Bench judgement of Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah (2005) 4 SCC 370. The Appellant contended that his affidavit merely presented his version of events or denied the version put forth by the complainant and that there was no deliberate falsehood or malafide intent in his statements.
Contentions of the Respondent:
Per contra, the respondent argued that the Appellant's affidavit contained deliberate misrepresentations and falsehoods, including claims about continuing relations despite his marriage being fixed with someone else and forcing the complainant to terminate her pregnancy. Respondent further contended that the High Court was justified in directing a complaint against the Appellant due to the aforesaid deliberate falsehoods, which were deemed sufficient grounds for initiating such proceedings.
Observations of the Court:
The Court determined that the appellant's statements in the Affidavit were merely his version of events and did not show a deliberate attempt to mislead, thus, lacking any malafide intent. The court observed that for perjury under Section 193 IPC, 1860 to be established, there must be clear evidence of deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance, which did not exist in the present case. The appellant's statements were found to be denials of the complainant's allegations and did not satisfy the standards for perjury, as there was no deliberate falsehood or malafide intention. The Court emphasized that perjury proceedings should only be initiated under exceptional circ*mstance i.e. where there is substantial evidence of deliberate falsehood, not simply because of inaccuracies or conflicting statements. The Court observed that the appellant's statements were primarily a denial of the complainant's claims and did not establish false evidence as per the Section.
Regarding the above, the court laid down the following conditions to be observed for initiating a prosecution of perjury. The court noted that, “What we may conclude from a perusal of the above-noticed judicial pronouncements is that: -
- 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 circ*mstances, for instance, when a party has perjured themselves to beneficial orders from the Court”
………
“The statement made by the appellant, which has been deemed to be befitting the offence of giving false evidence before the Court, was more in the nature of denial of the statements made in the affidavits of the complainant herein…..… 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.”
Decision:
The Supreme Court proceeded toset aside the High Court’s direction to file a complaint of perjury against the Appellant. The Court held that the statements made in the Affidavit did not constitute perjury, as there was no deliberate falsehood or malafide intent. The Appeal was allowed and the proceedings related to the perjury complaint were quashed. The decision did not affect the ongoing criminal case related to the initial FIR, which would continue on its merits.
Case Title: James Kunjwal v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.
Citation: SLP(Crl.) No.9783/2023
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
Date: August 13, 2024
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
Aakash Kumar
