Mere Inconsistency In Witness’s Statements Witness Does Not Constitute Perjury U/S 193 CrPC For: SC

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

• Previously in this case, the Karnataka High Court had ordered the prosecution of Returning Officer upon a finding that he had presented false evidence before the Court while he was being examined in the election petition.
• An appeal was filed against this order, referring to the statements given by the officer.
• It observed that no deliberate falsehood was uttered by him, with much less inconsistency.
• Apart from that, it was also alleged that the learned Judge had not put the appellant on notice on the allegation of committing perjury and he was provided with an opportunity.
• Strict action must be taken against the learned Judge as he came to the conclusion that one of the versions is deliberate or intentional falsehood.

COMMENTS BY JUSTICE BOPANNA AND ROY

• Justices AS Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy observed that even on the aspect of intentional false evidence, the Court comes to a conclusion and forms an opinion whether it is expedient in the interest of justice to initiate an inquiry into the offences of false evidence.
• This is observed in regards to the overall factual matrix including the probable consequences of such type of prosecution.
• Considering the facts of the case, the Court must be satisfied that such an inquiry is required in the interest of justice.

OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE COURT

• While setting aside the High Court judgement, the Supreme Court observed that, the Court has to come to a conclusion in the interest of justice and initiated an inquiry into the offences of false evidence.
• Insofar, the observation has been made by the learned Judge of the Election Tribunal regarding the need for maintenance in purity of the election process.
• As it is considered as the heart and soul of democracy, in such situation, the role of the Returning Officer is pivotal, and we completely agree with that.
• However, it should also be noted, that merely because of the position of the Returning Officer in this instant case, it doesn’t necessarily have to be exposed to prosecution.
• Thus, the Bench headed by CJI, NV Ramana held that, if no intentional falsehood is uttered and proved, the witness cannot be prosecuted for perjury under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code.
• The Court also observed that mere reference to inconsistent statements alone is not sufficient to take an action unless the finding is definite and they are irreconcilable.

DO YOU THINK IT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS PREJURY?