The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a judgment in the case of James Kunjwal v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr., arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 9783/2023. The case centered around allegations of perjury under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the appellant, James Kunjwal, following an order passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital. The High Court had directed the Registrar (Judicial) to file a complaint against Kunjwal, alleging that he had intentionally filed a false affidavit during the proceedings related to a bail cancellation application.
Facts of the Case:
The appellant, James Kunjwal, was originally accused in FIR No. 109 of 2021, registered under Sections 376 and 504 of the IPC by the second respondent, referred to as โXโ to protect her identity. The accusations involved the appellant allegedly establishing relations with the complainant under the false pretext of marriage. Subsequently, the complainant sought to cancel the bail granted to the appellant by the High Court, alleging that Kunjwal had made contradictory statements in his affidavits.
The High Court, while dismissing the bail cancellation application, noted contradictions between the affidavits filed by the appellant and the complainant. It was observed that the appellant had failed to assist the Court in finding the truth regarding certain events, leading the High Court to conclude that the appellant had intentionally filed a false affidavit. Consequently, the High Court directed the Registrar to file a complaint against Kunjwal under Section 193 IPC.
Legal Issues Involved:
The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the statements made by the appellant in his affidavit constituted an offense under Section 193 IPC, which pertains to giving false evidence. The Court also examined whether the initiation of proceedings under Section 193 IPC was justified, based on the principles laid down in various judicial precedents.
Decision of the Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court, in a judgment authored by Justice Sanjay Karol, with Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan concurring, allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s order directing the filing of a complaint against the appellant. The Court held that the mere denial of the allegations made in the complainantโs affidavit did not meet the threshold for an offense under Section 193 IPC. The Court emphasized that there was no malafide intention or deliberate attempt to mislead the Court in the appellant’s statements.
The Court relied on established principles, noting that prosecution for perjury should only be initiated in exceptional circumstances where deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance is evident. The Court further observed that the statements made by the appellant were more in the nature of a denial of the complainantโs version of events and did not constitute perjury.
Important Observations:
The Supreme Court made several significant observations in its judgment, stating:
– “A denial simpliciter cannot meet the threshold, as described in the judgments above, particularly when no malafide intention/deliberate attempt can be understood from the statement made by the appellant in the affidavit.”
– “There must be distinct evidence of the commission of an offense, and mere suspicion or inaccurate statements do not attract the offense under Section 193 IPC.”
– “Proceedings under Section 193 should be initiated in exceptional circumstances, and not merely because of inaccuracy in statements that may be innocent or immaterial.”
Also Read
Case Details:
– Case Title: James Kunjwal v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.
– Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. ____ of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 9783/2023)
– Bench: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
