FALSE EVIDENCE AND OFFENCES AGAINST

PUBLIC JUSTICE

Submitted by

Sanjith C

Reg. No. BC0190041

Name of the Guide

MRINMOYEE MUKHERJEE
Assistant Professor

TAMIL NADU NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

(A State University established by Act No. 9 of 2012)
Tiruchirappalli
Tamil Nadu – 620 027

DECEMBER – 2020
MRINMOYEE MUKHERJEE
Assistant Professor of IPC
Tamil Nadu National Law University
Tiruchirappalli
Tamil Nadu – 620 027

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the project work entitled “False Evidences and Offences

Against Public Justice” is a bonafide record of the research work done by (Sanjith C),

under my supervision and guidance. It has not been submitted by any other

University for the award of any degree, diploma, associateship, fellowship or for any

other similar recognition.

Place: Tiruchirappalli

Date:

Signature of the Guide

Sanjith C
Reg. No. BC0190041
II – B.Com., LLB., (Hons.)
Tamil Nadu National Law University
Tiruchirappalli
Tamil Nadu – 620 027

DECLARATION
I (Sanjith C), Register Number (BC0190041), hereby declare that this Research Paper

work entitled “False Evidence and Offences Against Public Justice” has been

originally carried out by me under the guidance and supervision vision of (Mrinmoyee

Mukherjee), Assistant professor, Tamil Nadu National Law University,

Tiruchirappalli - 620 027. This work has not been submitted either in whole or in part

of any Degree/ Diploma at any University.

Place: Tiruchirappalli

Date:

Counter Signed Signature of the Candidate

Project Guide
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
At the outset, I take this opportunity to thank my Professor (Mrinmoyee Mukherjee)

from the bottom of my heart who have been of immense help during moments of anxiety and

torpidity while the project was taking its crucial shape.

Secondly, I convey my deepest regards to the Vice Chancellor xxxxxx and the

administrative staff of TNNLU who held the project in high esteem by providing reliable

information in the form of library infrastructure and database connections in times of need.

Thirdly, the contribution made by my parents and friends by foregoing their precious

time is unforgettable and highly solicited. Their valuable advice and timely supervision

paved the way for the successful completion of this project.

Finally, I thank the Almighty who gave me the courage and stamina to confront all

hurdles during the making of this project. Words aren’t sufficient to acknowledge the

tremendous contributions of various people involved in this project, as I know ‘Words are

Poor Comforters’. I once again wholeheartedly and earnestly thank all the people who were

involved directly or indirectly during this project making which helped me to come out with

flying colours.
 CONTENT
Title Page
Introduction 3
Land Revenue Administration in Ancient India 5
Early Land Tenure experiments in British period 7
Raiyatwari Land Tenure System 8
Conclusion 8
Appendices (photos &if any…) 10

INTRODUCTION
 Brief Introduction about the title……sflkjsdklj(not more than one page)

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

 To create awareness about the offences under which one can be convicted for false
evidence.
 To know why Lawyers are being excluded from the Section 191.
 To understand the concept of Perjury and the differences between Indian and
English Law on this regard.
 To help people stay away from false evidence brokers and agencies.

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

This project work entitled (title of the project) is carried out with the help of

Primary Sources and Secondary Sources. Primary Sources like…….. (what you

grasp)…

Secondary Sources like…………….. (what you grasp)

RESEARCH QUESTION

 If there is any procedural irregularity of oath taking will Section 191 still be
applicable?
 Should Advocates be convicted under Section 191 for making false statements
during the trial?

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
 In this project I would first make the reader aware of the concept first by giving it’s
definition. The make of this project is Doctrinal study. I have used interpretative method
where I would give examples to elaborate the concept. Case citations help the reader to
understand the concept better as they are real life examples. Then the research questions help
in advance and in-depth analysis of False evidence. Here, I have used analytical
methodology.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

A brief review of your best and relevant primary and secondary sources i.e.,

Books, articles, journals, etc.,

FALSE EVIDENCE
Segment 191 of the Indian Penal Code explains that giving false evidence
suggests an individual restricted by vow or provision of law, to confess all,
gives a bogus articulation or a clarification that he doesn't acknowledge to be
substantial or acknowledges to be bogus. Fake decree or proof offered by a
person can be in made structure or in verbal. Section 191 is in any case called
Perjury under English Perjury Act 1911.

ESSENTIALS OF FALSE EVIDENCE

According to section 191 of the IPC, false evidence comprises of these essential
ingredients:
An individual is said to offer fake articulation when he is legally obligated by a
vow, regardless whatever situation he’s in and when he gives a bogus
explanation or announcement which he knows or accept not being valid.

The three basic and essential conditions are:

a) A legitimate commitment to speak or submit only the truth;
b) The creation of a fake explanation or announcement;
c) Belief in its misrepresentation.
DIFFERENCES VIS—VIS THE.ENGLISH LAW OF PERJURY
i. To continue with an arraignment under section 191, it is satisfactory, if
the denounced had given a phony declaration rather than the oath or an
express arrangement of law to convey reality or confined by law to make
a revelation, while under English law indictment for perjury is allowed
precisely when there is an.express infringement of an.oath. In India, oath
is fundamentally one of.the structures by which a social affair may will in
actuality talk reality.
ii. In English law, the hoax affirmation apparently been made in real
continuing with which is, under the vigilant gaze of courts. In section
191, it isn't so purposely restricted. Under section 191, if an individual is
lawfully confined by oath or by express arrangement of law to convey
reality and performs in against to it, he will be subject for arraignment. In
the.IPC, the ability is basic just in picking the level of control to be
obliged.
iii. In English law, perjury must be shown by two onlookers or by one
eyewitness with other approving material evidence. Under the IPC, no
specific number of witnesses is expected to help the fault.
iv. In English law, the issue promised to must be material.to the
circumstance in which it is given. According to the.IPC, materiality.isn't
requested, despite.the way that, it would.doubtlessly be contemplated by
the court.when allowing discipline.

LEGALLY BOUND BY OATH OR LAW TO SAY.THE TRUTH

Section-191 is fundamental exactly when a declaration is made.by an
individual confined by an oath or by an express arrangement of law to pass on
this present reality, or who is limited by law to make an introduction upon any
subject. Constantly end, it suggests that he is under a lawful responsibility to
talk reality considering the oath sorted out some way to deal with him or as a
result of the express strategy of law, which obliges him to talk reality. The
Oaths Act 1969, enables all courts and all people having, by law or assent of
social affairs, ability to get confirmation and regulators of military stations to
supervise oaths and endorsements. The oath or approval is with a conclusive
objective that the spectator 'will talk.truth’, all of immense information and just
truth.' The pivotal clarification for figuring out of oath is to pass on people who
give counterfeit proof in risk to arraignment and further to re-appearance of the
eyewitness the gravity of the limit and to present for him the commitment of
talking reality. The oath itself must be made by an individual out of skilled
power. In any case, what is enormous is the competency of the authority before
which the certification is made to orchestrate the equivalent. On the off chance
that the capable authority either deliberately or surprisingly neglects to control
the oath to the individual concerned, it doesn't make the individual creation the
acquaintance less committed with talk reality.
The clarification behind managing the oath to an observer is to get back the
gravity of the limit and to present for him the dedication of talking reality. The
obligation to pass on the fact of the issue is set down in sectionh8 of the Oaths
Act 1969. At whatever point, in an official court, an individual ties himself on
oath to give reality, he will in actuality pass on this present reality. Any
oversight or unconventionality in the relationship of oath can't nullify any
structure or render denied any affirmation at all. Thusly, regardless of whether
the capable position neglects to deal with the oath when everything is said in
done or presents an inconsistency in the relationship of the oath, it doesn't
impact the commitment of the individual to talk reality.
On the off chance that an individual removes deceitfully before such talented
power, he is subject for arraignment for giving fake check under this section. In
any case, if the court concerned had no master notwithstanding to control an
oath to an observer, this section has no application. Hypothesis against the
spectator for giving fake affirmation won’t stand. Further, the technique must
be grasped by.law. On the off chance that the structure itself is one without
domain and not maintained or upheld by.law, by then any phony clarification
made in that isn't an offense.
No accomplice is lawfully kept by an.oath or by an express blueprint of law.to
give reality. A lawyer, thusly, can't be held reprehensible for either giving fake
affirmation (under section.193) or utilizing demand known to be fake (under
section.196).
Right when an individual is kept by an express arrangement of law to pass on
this present reality, he isn't expected to make an affirmation to give reality. He,
in this manner, can't be reviled for giving fake affirmation.

FABRICATING FALSE EVIDENCE

Section 192. Fabricating false evidence:
 “Whoever causes any circumstance to exist or makes any false entry in
any book or record, or electronic record or makes any document or
electronic record containing a false statement, intending that such
circumstance, false entry or false statement may appear in evidence in a
judicial proceeding, or in a proceeding taken by law before a public
servant as such, or before an arbitrator, and that such circumstance, false
entry or false statement, so appearing in evidence, may cause any person
who in such proceeding is to form an opinion upon the evidence, to
entertain an erroneous opinion touching any point material to the result of such
proceeding, is said ‘to fabricate false evidence’.”

ESSENTIALS OF FABRICATING FALSE EVIDENCE

Section 192 explains the essential ingredients under Fabricating False
(i) The causing of any circumstance to exist or making any phony section
or of any report containing a fake announcement.
(ii) With point that it may appear in affirmation in a sound proceeding; or
in a methodology taken by law before an association laborer or a
consigned position.
(iii) To cause any person whose responsibility it is in such way of thinking
to graph a hypothesis upon the statement, to appear at a perplexed end
on any quick material toward the postponed result of such proceeding.
Sporadically, sections 191 and 192 may cover. For instance, the
pledges to of a fake affidavit would be an offense under the two
sections 191 and 192. An affidavit is a sworn explanation focused in
on happening to promises to admit all before the fit position and along
these lines, the methods of section 191 are attracted and it would
amount to giving stunt affirmation. Simultaneously, vows to a phony
affidavit would in like manner amount to making a record containing
slyness clarification, which exposure is used as explanation in an
ensured proceeding with hence building up an offense under section
192 also. It may be appropriate to point out that the offense of creation
may make by not simply an act of commission, which is, by making
scam entry in any book or record, in fact, regardless can
correspondingly happen if a material oversight is made in a section or
a presentation.
INTENTION THAT.FABRICATED EVIDENCE.MAY APPEAR AS
EVIDENCE IN.A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING
To pull in the plans of this section, it isn't adequate to make a bogus record. The
direct arrangement of false account won't add up to fabrication. At the hour of
making the fake archive, it is head that the individual creation it ought to have
the intention that the phony report so made ought to show up in affirmation in a
judicial proceeding or in any proceeding taken by law. In any case, in case this
intention is represented, an offense under this section can't be set up. The
offense gets total when the fabrication is done; it is irrelevant that the judicial
proceeding has not been begun.
To build up the intention of utilizing the phony record in a proceeding, vicinity
to a judicial proceeding approaching or the probability that judicial proceeding
will be started, is a test by which intention to utilize the bogus archive in a
proceeding can be set up. Without a doubt, even a sensible possibility of
utilizing the report created as affirmation, is adequate to support the offense
under this section.
PUNISHMENT FOR.FALSE EVIDENCE
Section-193 gives that whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any time of
a genuine continuing or fabricates false evidence to be utilized in any time of
the legal continuing, will be repulsed by clear or thorough constrainment for a
term as long as seven years. On the off chance that the giving or fabricating of
false evidence in some other case, as regardless other than legal frameworks, the
punishment grasped is constrainment of either portrayal for a term which may
relax as long as three years and will in like way be obligated to fine. An
analyzing of section 193 shows that the punishment in regard of giving or
fabricating false evidence in legal frameworks is viewed as altogether more
genuine in character and appropriately, a higher punishment of as long as seven
years control has been obliged by the lawmaking body. The lawmaking body
has seen equivalent offense of giving or fabricating false evidence in strategies
other than real techniques, and has compelled a lesser punishment of three years
restriction. It has been seen before in the part, that in regard of announcing of
battles for giving or fabricating false evidence in real methods, a momentous
system has been recommended under section 195(1)(b), CrPC. As demonstrated
by this section, a dispute under section 193 for giving or fabricating false
evidence in an authentic continuing can be secured, exactly at whatever point
sent by the court concerned. This is on the grounds that considering the higher
sentence obliged offenses submitted over the scope of real techniques, the
lawmaking body thought it fit that sufficient procedural guarantee ought to also
be given to the charged. Since, in regard of giving false evidence or fabrication
of evidence in procedures other than genuine techniques, a lesser sentence has
been held onto as shield, given under section 195.
INTENTION

Intention to give a false evidence assumes an imperative part in the Indian

Constitution. False evidence should be given intentionally, if, the individual
making the declaration knows or has data that it is false and has deliberately
used such evidence in a legitimate proceeding with the intention of misleading
the court. Regardless, straightforward incongruities or irregularities in evidence
in light of disorder of cerebrum or disillusionment of memory can't be seen as
false evidence given intentionally.

OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC JUSTICE

Conclusion
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources

1. Chandra Bipan, India after Independence, Penguin Books Publications, New

Delhi, 1987.

2. Slkajfowejf

News Papers

 The Hindu, Chennai Edition, dated 27th August 2016.

 The Times of India, Kolkatha Edition, dated 31st March 2016.

Secondary Sources

1. Chandra Bipan, India after Independence, Penguin Books Publications, New

Delhi, 1987.

2. Hgsfdyery

Web Sources

 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#search/history+project/15397dc89a2d27

0aaccessed on 8th February 2020.

 http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/25714/7/07_chapter

%202.pdfaccessed on 20th March 2019.

 http://tnnls.ac.inaccessed on 18th January 2020.

 http://www.sjctni.edu/accessed on 20th March 2020.

 APPENDICES

(Photos, Charts, Primary evidences…. if any…..)