Case Note & Summary
This appeal arose from a conviction for perjury under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, against a police sub-inspector who had filed a false affidavit in habeas corpus proceedings. The dispute began when Surjit Singh, son of Risaldar Waryam Singh, was arrested on September 25, 1953, at Barnala in PEPSU State by Police Inspector Jaswant Singh. He was kept in custody and handed over to the appellant, who was the Station House Officer of Shehna police station. Surjit Singh remained in police custody at Shehna from September 26, 1953, until October 10, 1953, when he was surreptitiously removed to other police stations in the then Punjab. An application under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the PEPSU High Court alleging unlawful detention without charge or remand. In response, the appellant filed an affidavit on October 13, 1953, denying that Surjit Singh was in his custody, denying that Inspector Jaswant Singh had entrusted Surjit Singh to him, and stating that Surjit Singh was absconding. The affidavit was affirmed as true to the best of his knowledge and belief. Later, the parties admitted that Surjit Singh was not in the appellant's custody, and the habeas corpus petition was dismissed. The brother of Surjit Singh then applied under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, for prosecution of the appellant and Inspector Jaswant Singh for perjury. The High Court ordered prosecution of the appellant; a complaint was filed and the First Class Magistrate convicted the appellant under Section 193 IPC, sentencing him to nine months' imprisonment and a fine of Rs.300. The Sessions Judge upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to three months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.50, and the PEPSU High Court dismissed the revision. The appellant obtained special leave from the Supreme Court. The main legal issues were whether the appellant could be convicted under Section 193 IPC when he was not legally bound to file an affidavit, and whether a statement affirmed to the best of knowledge and belief fell within Section 191 IPC. The appellant argued that under the PEPSU High Court Rules for habeas corpus proceedings, no affidavit was required for a return, so he was not legally bound by an oath and Section 191 did not apply. He also argued that the affidavit being affirmed to belief could not be split into knowledge and belief. The State contended that once a person voluntarily makes a statement on oath, he is bound to state the truth, and the absence of compulsion is no defence; moreover, Explanation 2 to Section 191 covers false statements affirmed to belief. The Supreme Court rejected the appellant's contentions. It held that Section 191 IPC applies whenever a person binds himself on oath to state the truth, regardless of whether he was legally compelled to make the affidavit. The Court observed that the very sanctity of the oath requires a person put on oath to state the truth. It further held that in habeas corpus proceedings where facts are in issue and police action is challenged, the detaining authority must justify custody by affidavit, so in this case an affidavit was indeed necessary. The Court also held that Explanation 2 to Section 191 brings a false statement affirmed to the belief of the accused within the offence. It disapproved of Emperor v. Lachmi Narain. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction under Section 193 IPC, affirming the sentence of three months' simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.50.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Perjury - Legal Obligation to State Truth on Oath - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 191, 193 - The appellant, a police sub-inspector, filed a false affidavit in habeas corpus proceedings denying custody of Surjit Singh. He contended he was not legally bound to file an affidavit, so Section 191 did not apply. The Court held that once a person voluntarily makes a statement on oath, he is bound to state the truth and cannot claim as defence that he was not compelled to make the affidavit; therefore conviction under Section 193 was upheld (Paras 1-5). B) Criminal Law - Perjury - False Statement Affirmed to Belief - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 191 Explanation 2, Section 193 - The appellant's affidavit stated facts were true to the best of his knowledge and belief. The Court held that Explanation 2 to Section 191 brings a false statement affirmed to the belief of the accused within the mischief of Section 191 and makes it punishable under Section 193 (Paras 5-6). C) Constitutional Law - Habeas Corpus - Necessity of Affidavit by Detaining Authority - Constitution of India, Article 226; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 491 - In habeas corpus proceedings, when issues of fact are raised and police actions challenged, the detaining authority must justify custody by disclosing facts through an affidavit. The Court observed that the whole object of habeas corpus is expeditious and simple determination of right to freedom, and where facts are in issue an affidavit becomes necessary (Paras 3-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a person who was not legally bound to file an affidavit can be convicted under Section 193 IPC for a false statement made in such affidavit; whether a statement affirmed as true to the best of knowledge and belief falls within Section 191 IPC.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the appellant's conviction under Section 193 IPC. The Court held that the appellant was rightly convicted, affirming the sentence of three months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.50 as imposed by the Sessions Judge.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- A person making a statement on oath in court is legally bound to state truth under Section 191 IPC
- not being legally obligated to file an affidavit is no defence
- Explanation 2 to Section 191 covers false statements affirmed to belief
- in habeas corpus proceedings detaining authority must disclose facts by affidavit when custody challenged
- oath administered by authorized officer binds deponent
