Date of Judgement:
3 August 2021
Bench:
CJI N.V. Ramana
Justice Hemant Gupta
Justice A.S. Bopanna
Parties:
Appellants – N.S. Nandiesha Reddy and Ashok Mensinkai
Respondents – Kavitha Mahesh
Subject
The following judgement involved the law relating to perjury. It said that intentionally giving false evidence falls under the ambit of perjury. But contradictory statements or their inconsistency does not call for prosecution of the witness under Section 193 of IPC.
Issues
- Whether criminal proceedings under Section 193 IPC should be initiated against Mr. Ashok Mensinkai or not?
- Does inconsistency in the statements of witness amount to perjury?
Overview
- In this case, both the Appellants had separately filed a civil appeal to challenge an order passed by the Karnataka HC in an election petition. The order said that the election of N.S. Nandiesha Reddy (Appellant no.1) from K.R. Pura Constituency in Karnataka Legislative Assembly is void, under Section 100(1)(c) of the Representation of People Act 1951.
- The order also directed the Registrar General of the High Court to register a complaint against Ashok Mensinkai (Appellant no.2) under Section 193 of the IPC for perjury.
- The High Court believed that Appellant no.2, who was the Returning Officer of this election, had given false evidence before the Court when examined as a witness (PW3) in the aforementioned election petition filed by Kavitha Mahesh (respondent). Hence a criminal prosecution against him is required.
- The term of Appellant no.1 as an MLA, was from 2008-2013. However, his election was declared void under Section 100(1)(c) of the Representation of People Act, 1951. When an appeal was made against this, the Apex Court had granted a stay and he was able to complete his tenure. Hence, the learned counsel for Appellant no.1 contended that since his client has already completed his term in 2013, this appeal has become infructuous.
- Kavita Mahesh (respondent) had filed the election petition on the ground that her nomination papers were not accepted by Appellant no.2, which led to her being denied of the opportunity to contest the said elections.
- Moreover, while dealing with this petition, the Court made an observation that the statements made by Appellant no.2 were inconsistent and changed according to his convenience. Hence, it raised questions as to his credibility.
- The respondent (Kavita Mahesh) said that as a Returning Officer, he was under an obligation to accept the nomination papers, which he failed to do so. To this, Appellant no.2 retorted that since the papers were presented to him after the closing hours, he was under no such obligation. Also, the statements given by both the parties were contradictory to each other. The HC accepted the version submitted by Kavita.
- Thus, the learned single judge of the High Court held that the witness (Appellant no.2) was obviously lying on oath. He said that his version of the statements changed every time he was deposed.
- The judge concluded that such a witness is not only lying but also committing perjury and hence deserves to be prosecuted for it under Section 193 of the IPC and ordered the same. Aggrieved by this order, Appellant no.2 approached the Supreme Court.
Legal Provisions
- Section 100(1)(c) of the Representation of People Act 1951 – An election can be declared void if the nomination of any potential candidate is rejected improperly.
- Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code,1980 – Up to 3 years of punishment for giving false evidence in a judicial proceeding.
Judgement
- Firstly, the Supreme Court held that the manner in which the learned judge of the High Court dealt with the case is not justified. The Court pointed out the judgement of KTMS Mohammad and Another vs. Union of India, 1992 where it was held that “the fact that a witness has made contradictory statements at two different stages in a judicial proceeding is not sufficient enough to prosecute such witness for perjury under Section 193 of IPC.”
- The respondent, in their defence, referred to the case of Mahavir Singh and Ors. vs. Naresh Chandra and the judgement of Jagan Nath vs. Jaswant Singh in their written statements. However, the Court found them to be irrelevant. Hence, the order passed by the High Court to prosecute Appellant no.2 was set aside.
- The Apex Court took cognizance of the fact that such issues might arise in the future and said that, “the Court has to act prudently in such matters to form an opinion whether it is essential in the interest of justice to initiate an inquiry into such offences, keeping in mind all the facts as well as the consequences of such prosecution. The Court must also be absolutely satisfied that such an inquiry is warranted in the interest of justice”.
- The Supreme Court also pointed out that no evidence was submitted by the respondent to prove that she had previously contested elections or that she had a substantial support base in the concerned elections to actually win.
- Also, there was no evidence to implicate that Appellant no.2 was using his position to favor some other candidate who might be threatened by the respondent's participation in the election.
- One important fact that was taken into consideration by the Court was that Appellant no.2 was 59 years old when he was deposed in the year 2011, so he must be almost 69 now. Also, he retired from the service almost 8 years ago. Hence, it would not be expedient, reasonable, or justified to initiate criminal proceedings for perjury against him.
Conclusion
To ‘perjure’ yourself means to make a false or misleading statement while under oath. In criminal jurisprudence, it is considered to be a crime against justice and is a punishable offence. In this judgement, the Supreme Court established that inconsistent or contradictory statements made by a witness can affect his credibility, or it can affect the case of the party who called him as a witness. However, it does not necessarily constitute the offence of perjury. Hence, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case and satisfaction of other essential ingredients, the Court should apply its mind and decide whether a criminal proceeding under Section 193 IPC is warranted or not.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
