25 October 2009
In India perjury encompasses statement, material and/or any other form of evidence. The use of false material and inconsistent declarations also fall under the category of perjury. For instance, in the Jessica Lall case, it has to be seen whether the sudden invention of two weapons having been used constituted false material. In Zaheera Sheikh case it is her inconsistent declarations and retractions.
The Indian Penal Code (IPC) under Section 191 defines perjury as giving false evidence and by interpretation it includes the statements retracted later as the person is presumed to have given a false statement earlier or later, when the statement is retracted. Under section 191 of IPC, an affidavit is evidence and a person swearing to a false affidavit is guilty of perjury punishable under Section 193 IPC which prescribes the period of punishment as seven years imprisonment. However, action against making a false statement should be initiated during the trial itself, and not at the end of it which may take a long time. That may be a deterrent against persons who intentionally mislead the court or make false statements under oath or file tainted affidavits much against the public good. This is one of the reasons initiating action against a person for perjury after the trial is over why in India several perjury cases go totally unnoticed as a fresh trial begins on perjury running into years.
28 July 2011
Mr Vishal has beautifully illustrated the problem. The vital problem of Indian Judiciary is this. Only if section 191 and punishment under 193 is applied to every case that comes within its purview the Indian judiciary will get over the problem of backlog of cases, because no more false cases will be filed. Then the Judaical officers can handle the genuine cases more effectively as the burden on them is eased. Do not get worried about the number of cases under section 191 and 193, it is the medicine to be applied to ease the burden.
27 May 2013
During the trial yes. SC stated this in Rameshwari Devi case. Perjury in a Money recovery case & fabrication of false evidence and giving false evidence was proved by cross examination of recalling defendant and witness to give alibi to him. A vital document xerox submitted, original was not submitted. Court ordered original to be submitted 10 days before verdict. During arguments when pressed for taking cognisance of offences as per SC directive in Rameshwari Devi case, Court refused that is a separate case to be dealt later. SEc 350, 352 CrPC applicaion was ignored and this was tackled by the Judge by stating the evidence filed initially is original.He omitted my name as advocate who argued. he ridiculed filing CrPC application as wild attempt. He praised false witness's integrity. He says plea for suo motu cognisance for lies in defence is is as if no defence can be put forth.
25 January 2015
The court cannot be held for perjury though adv. Aiyer has a good case because the judges are immune. The same is the attitude of almost all judges in India, and those who insist to take cognizance of is condemned and ridiculed. Unless and until the IPC 191 is strictly followed the courts in India will be overburdened with false cases.