Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a criminal appeal filed by the Income Tax Department against the acquittal of the respondent, Dev Kumar Agarwal, for alleged perjury under Section 193 read with Section 191 of the Indian Penal Code. The background involves a search conducted on 8th January 1975 at the respondent's residence by the Income Tax Officer, K.K. Gupta, during which silver and gold coins valued at Rs.2,67,000, miniature paintings valued at Rs.40,000, and foreign currency were seized. Under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the respondent was examined on oath and stated that these articles belonged to one Mr. Kalyanmal. However, in his income tax return for the assessment year 1975-76 filed on 29th September 1975, the respondent disclosed the same articles as his own and paid tax on their value. The Income Tax Department contended that this inconsistency proved that the earlier statement was false, constituting perjury. A private complaint was filed, and the trial court convicted the respondent. On appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, set aside the conviction and acquitted the respondent. The High Court was asked to consider whether the acquittal was correct. The legal issue was whether the respondent's inconsistent statements amounted to perjury under Section 193 IPC. The appellant argued that the respondent's subsequent admission of ownership proved his earlier denial was false. The respondent contended that the earlier statement was made under confusion and that he later realized the articles were his, and he had no intention to lie. The court analyzed the evidence and found that the prosecution failed to prove that the earlier statement was deliberately false. The court noted that the respondent had no motive to lie as he voluntarily paid tax on the articles. The court held that mere inconsistency between two statements does not establish perjury; the prosecution must prove which statement is false and that it was made with intent to deceive. The court found the respondent's explanation plausible and upheld the acquittal, dismissing the appeal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Perjury - Section 193 read with 191 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Inconsistent Statements - The appellant, Income Tax Officer, alleged that the respondent made a false statement on oath during search under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, claiming that seized articles belonged to another, but later in his income tax return declared them as his own and paid tax. The trial court convicted the respondent, but the Sessions Court acquitted him. The High Court upheld the acquittal, holding that mere inconsistency between two statements does not prove which one is false; the prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt that the earlier statement was deliberately false. The respondent's subsequent declaration and payment of tax could be an honest change of position or mistake, not necessarily perjury. (Paras 1-10) B) Evidence - Burden of Proof - Perjury - The prosecution failed to prove that the respondent's earlier statement was false. The respondent's explanation that he initially thought the articles belonged to his father-in-law but later realized they were his was plausible. The court noted that the respondent had no motive to lie as he voluntarily paid tax on the articles. The acquittal was not perverse and did not warrant interference. (Paras 5-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent's inconsistent statements regarding ownership of seized articles during search and in income tax return constitute the offence of perjury under Section 193 read with Section 191 of the Indian Penal Code.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of respondent no. 1 from charges under Section 193 read with 191 IPC.
Law Points
- Perjury
- Section 193 IPC
- Section 191 IPC
- Inconsistent statements
- Burden of proof
- Mens rea
- Income Tax Act 1961 Section 132(4)
