Lord Bryce once observed that there can be no better test of excellence of a government that the efficiency of its judicial administration. The concept of justice became more conspicuous with the growth of State which ensure justice to its people through the instrumentality of law. One offence which has been neglected for long and has not been taken seriously by the Indian Courts is Perjury, it has been long been an overlooked crime by the judiciary, requiring immediate attention for effective management.
In the recent judgment dated June 8, 2023, in the case of King Victor Ch. Marak vs. State of Meghalaya, a division bench of the High Court of Meghalaya noted that trial courts should initiate perjury proceedings against individuals if their evidence is disbelieved based on cogent grounds. The Court made these observations while dismissing a criminal appeal challenging the appellant’s conviction for offenses under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, in conjunction with Section 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
In this context, the High Court held that the three witnesses who testified that the child had not visited the appellant’s residence were evidently tutored, and observed:
“…In the light of the appellant not asserting that the survivor had not come to the appellant’s residence on the relevant date, the afterthought on the basis of which the three defence witnesses were tutored and made to say in court that the survivor did not come to their residence, was obvious…. the trial court upon disbelieving the evidence of any person on cogent grounds, should also take steps for perjury. Unless Indian judges get serious with litigants and witnesses, the present trend of false affidavits being filed and false evidence being given may one day render the judiciary irrelevant…”
The Court’s observations should be understood within the context of the legal framework, which grants the judiciary sufficient authority to act against perjurious witnesses. Chapter XI of the IPC (Sections 191 to 229A) now known as Chapter XIV of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (Sections 227 to 248) addresses offenses related to giving false evidence and offenses against public justice. Sections 195 and 340 of the CrPC now known as 215 and 379 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) cover the procedural aspects of prosecuting such offenses. It is the responsibility of the Court, or an officer authorised in writing by that Court, or another Court to which the former is subordinate, to file a complaint concerning an act of perjury committed before it.
Additionally, these observations should be considered in light of judicial dicta on the matter. This is neither the first instance of a court expressing concern over the rising incidents of perjury, nor is it a new issue.
Why, despite concerns raised by the High Courts and the Supreme Court, is this issue neither adequately addressed nor considered a serious one?
There are precisely two main reasons for this:-
1. Under Section 215, courts can only take cognisance based on a written complaint by a public servant, which poses a significant hindrance to the effective implementation of this law. Public servants are often reluctant to file complaints against perjury when false evidence is presented by their own team or department. Instead, a third party or neutral party should be authorized to file complaints to the Magistrate. That precisely means allowing the private prosecution for this offence. Under Section 190 CrPC (Sec. 210 of BNSS), a Magistrate is authorized to take cognisance of an offense. However, Section 195 CrPC imposes a restriction on the Magistrate’s ability to take cognizance unless a complaint is made in writing by a Public Servant for offenses covered under sub-clause 1(a) or by a ‘court’ for offenses covered under sub-clause 1(b). We see that the attitude of Courts toward private prosecution is not is not welcoming.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in Patel Laljibhai Somabhai v. State of Gujarat (1971) 2 SCC 376:
“7….. The underlying purpose of enacting Section 195(1)(b) and (c) and Section 476, seems to be to control the temptation on the part of the private parties considering themselves aggrieved by the offences mentioned in those sections to start criminal prosecutions on frivolous, vexatious or insufficient grounds inspired by a revengeful desire to harass or spite their opponents. These offences have been selected for the court’s control because of their direct impact on the judicial process. It is the judicial process, in other words the administration of public justice, which is the direct and immediate object or victim of those offence and it is only by misleading the courts and thereby perverting the due course of law and justice that the ultimate object of harming the private party is designed to be realised. As the purity of the proceedings of the court is directly sullied by the crime, the Court is considered to be the only party entitled to consider the desirability of complaining against the guilty party. The private party designed ultimately to be injured through the offence against the administration of public justice is undoubtedly entitled to move the court for persuading it to file the complaint. But such party is deprived of the general right recognised by Section 190 CrPC, of the aggrieved parties directly initiating the criminal proceedings. …”
The aggrieved party can file an application under Section 379 of the BNSS for offences listed under Section 215 CrPC. Section 379 outlines the procedure to be followed for such offences. The Court has the discretion to order a preliminary inquiry to determine if the conditions of Section 215(1)(b) are met. Subsequently, the Court drafts a written complaint and forwards it to the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class with jurisdiction. There is a provision for appeal under Section 380 and the decision of the Appellate Court is final.
2. The lower judiciary’s attitude towards taking up complaints or cognisance of perjury is negligible. This is primarily because they are already overburdened with a heavy caseload and are reluctant to take on additional cases like perjury. To address this situation, it is imperative to establish separate trial courts specifically for perjury offenses, like the specialized courts for MPs/MLAs and SC/ST cases. This would alleviate the burden on the existing judiciary and enhance the efficiency of the courts.
In Suo Motu Proceedings against In Re R. Karuppan, Advocate, the Supreme Court empowered the Registrar General to appoint an officer to file a complaint under Section 193 of the IPC against the Respondent. The Court observed that merely having penal provisions for perjury is a cruel joke on society unless courts actively take action against it.
It is evident that judges are well-equipped to handle these concerns, and superior courts have repeatedly emphasised the importance of curbing perjurious acts. However, the powers to address perjury are exercised less frequently than necessary to ensure witnesses are cautious while testifying. It is crucial for the State as well as judiciary to take effective and integrated steps and act on the suggestions as mentioned above to recognize the situation and begin prosecuting perjurers, or the sanctity and very purpose of the court system may be irretrievably lost.
