The issue raised before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in James Kunjwal v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr. [2024] 8 S.C.R. 332 : 2024 INSC 601 was in what circumstances giving of false evidence in court constitutes offence under Section 193 IPC, that is, perjury. It was held that there are three essential factors which can be said to be sine qua non for the application of Section 193 IPC as held in Bhima Razu Prasad v. State Rep. by Deputy Supdt. of Police, CBI/SPE/ACU-II , which are :-
(1)false statement made on oath or in affidavits;
(2)that such statements be made in a judicial proceeding; or
(3)such statement be made before an authority that has been expressly deemed to be a ‘Court’.
It was further held that the Court should initiate proceedings against a person, who has allegedly made a false statement, if the following are satisfied :-
(i)The Court should be of the prima facie opinion that there exists sufficient and reasonable ground to initiate proceedings against the person who has allegedly made a false statement(s);
(ii)Such proceedings should be initiated when doing the same is “expedient in the interests of justice to punish the delinquent” and not merely because of inaccuracy in statements that may be innocent/immaterial;
(iii)There should be “deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance”;
(iv)The Court should be satisfied that there is a reasonable foundation for the charge, with distinct evidence and not mere suspicion;
(v)Proceedings should be initiated in exceptional circumstances, for instance, when a party has perjured themselves to beneficial orders from the Court.