Perjury and Justice: Why Indian Law Needs Stricter Penalties for False Testimonies
Perjury and Justice: Why Indian Law Needs Stricter Penalties for False Testimonies
Introduction
Perjury—the deliberate act of providing false testimony under oath—undermines the very foundation of the judicial system. In India, Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) addresses this offense, prescribing penalties for those who intentionally give false evidence in judicial proceedings. However, the current legal framework may not be sufficient to deter this grave offense. This article examines the existing provisions, relevant case law, and the need for stricter penalties to uphold justice.
Understanding Perjury Under Indian Law
Section 193 IPC stipulates that:
“Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
This provision underscores the seriousness with which the Indian legal system treats perjury.
Case Law Illustrating the Gravity of Perjury
1. Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab (2000)
The Supreme Court observed that perjury has become a routine practice in courts, with witnesses knowingly providing false statements. The Court emphasized that such conduct obstructs the administration of justice and undermines public confidence in the legal system.
2. Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana (1995)
The Supreme Court held that filing false affidavits or giving false statements under oath in court proceedings amounts to criminal contempt and perjury. The Court stressed that such actions impede the due course of judicial proceedings and must be dealt with sternly.
3. Tarun Keshrichand Shah v. Kishore Engineering Company (2019)
The Bombay High Court directed the initiation of criminal prosecution for perjury against a chartered accountant who knowingly made false statements under oath. The Court highlighted that such deliberate falsehoods in judicial proceedings must be met with appropriate legal action.
Challenges in Prosecuting Perjury
Despite the clear provisions under Section 193 IPC, prosecuting perjury remains challenging due to:
High Burden of Proof: Proving that a statement was intentionally false requires clear and convincing evidence.
Witness Inconsistencies: Minor inconsistencies in witness statements may not be sufficient to establish perjury.
Judicial Reluctance: Courts may hesitate to initiate perjury proceedings, especially when the falsehood does not significantly impact the case outcome.
The Need for Stricter Penalties
To effectively deter perjury and uphold the integrity of the judicial system, the following measures are recommended:
Enhanced Penalties: Increasing the maximum term of imprisonment and fines for perjury can serve as a stronger deterrent.
Streamlined Prosecution Process: Simplifying the procedures for initiating perjury proceedings can reduce delays and encourage timely action.
Public Awareness Campaigns: Educating the public about the consequences of perjury can discourage individuals from engaging in such conduct.
Conclusion
Perjury is a serious offense that threatens the foundation of the judicial system. While existing laws address this issue, stricter penalties and more efficient prosecution mechanisms are necessary to deter false testimonies effectively. By implementing these measures, India can strengthen its commitment to justice and ensure that the truth prevails in all judicial proceedings.
RELATED Blog
0 comments