Understand what constitutes false evidence, how courts initiate perjury proceedings, and the principles explained in Supreme Court and High Court decisions.
Perjury is a commonly used term for knowingly giving false evidence in circumstances where the law requires truthfulness. Under BNS section 227, giving false evidence includes making a false statement when legally bound by oath, an express provision of law, or a legal obligation to make a declaration on a subject, while knowing or believing the statement to be false or not believing it to be true. BNS section 228 addresses fabricating false evidence, including creating false circumstances or records with the requisite intent that they appear in evidence and cause an erroneous opinion on a material point.
Not every inconsistency, unsuccessful allegation, mistaken recollection or rejected affidavit amounts to perjury. The necessary legal ingredients, including knowledge and intention where prescribed, must be established.
| Current provision | Earlier provision | Subject and legal effect |
|---|---|---|
| BNS 227 | IPC 191 | Definition of giving false evidence. |
| BNS 228 | IPC 192 | Definition of fabricating false evidence. |
| BNS 229 | IPC 193 | Punishment for false evidence; the applicable penalty depends on whether it is given or fabricated for use in a judicial proceeding or another case. |
| BNS 233 | IPC 196 | Using evidence known to be false or fabricated as true or genuine. |
| BNSS 215 | CrPC 195 | Restrictions on courts taking cognizance of specified offences without the complaint of the relevant court or authorised public servant, as applicable. |
| BNSS 379 | CrPC 340 | Procedure by which a court may make a complaint concerning specified offences affecting the administration of justice, when it considers action expedient in the interests of justice. |
| BNSS 380 | CrPC 341 | Appeals against specified decisions to make or refuse a complaint. |
Read the enacted text and relevant commencement, repeal and savings provisions on India Code. For judicial orders and case status, use the Supreme Court of India and eCourts judgments portal.
Where the alleged offence falls within the statutory court-complaint requirement, a party may bring the suspected false evidence to the court's attention. Under BNSS section 379, the court considers whether an inquiry and complaint are expedient in the interests of justice. The court may undertake a preliminary inquiry if necessary; it is not automatically required in every case. The court may then record a finding and make a written complaint to the competent Magistrate, as provided by law.
A private allegation does not itself establish criminal guilt. The alleged falsity must be material and the statutory conditions satisfied. The timing of any court-directed action depends on the facts and controlling precedent; there is no universal rule that every application must always be decided first or only after the main case ends.
The following cases were included in the original LawDadi collection. The summaries are concise research pointers, not substitutes for the full judgments; procedural propositions should be checked against later decisions and the current statutory framework.
The Supreme Court strongly condemned fabrication and deliberate falsehood in judicial proceedings. The case is associated with a sentence of two weeks' imprisonment for conduct interfering with the administration of justice.
Addresses the timing of proceedings under former CrPC section 340. Any proposition about deferring an application must be assessed in its procedural context, rather than treated as an inflexible rule.
Discusses false and fabricated evidence used against accused persons and the serious consequences of deliberately misleading criminal proceedings.
Concerns allegations of suppression of earnings and a false affidavit in matrimonial proceedings. Whether a particular disclosure amounts to a prosecutable offence depends on the findings and statutory requirements.
Listed in the earlier compilation concerning punishment for false evidence. Check the complete decision for the precise facts, conviction and sentence before relying on it.
Discusses the handling and timing of a perjury application. It should not be read as a universal requirement that all perjury applications precede the underlying case.
In Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah, (2005) 4 SCC 370, the Supreme Court explained the importance of the interests-of-justice test in deciding whether a court complaint should be made. In Pritish v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 1 SCC 253, the Court considered the preliminary-inquiry process under former section 340 CrPC. These judgments remain important for understanding the predecessor procedure, subject to the present legislation and subsequent case law.
No. A court must consider whether the statement was knowingly false and whether the relevant statutory ingredients and procedural conditions are satisfied.
No. Certain offences concerning evidence in or relating to court proceedings are subject to special restrictions on cognizance and a court-complaint procedure. The applicable route depends on the alleged offence and circumstances.
BNSS section 379 provides the corresponding procedure under the new criminal procedure law. For earlier proceedings, the applicable savings and transition provisions must be examined.
This article is general legal information. Verify the full judgment and current law before citing any case or initiating proceedings.