BACK TO SECTIONS(2007) 10 SCC 424
BailableCognizable: Non-CognizableMagistrate First Class
THE STATUTE
Original Text
Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine...
Simplified
Section 193 creates a two-tier punishment for false evidence — 7 years for judicial proceedings, 3 years for other proceedings. The higher judicial penalty reflects that court perjury most directly threatens the delivery of justice and the liberty of individuals before the court. A hostile witness who lies to protect a murderer, a party who files a false affidavit, or a police officer who fabricates evidence in a chargesheet — all face up to 7 years under Section 193. Despite the severe prescribed penalty, prosecutions remain extremely rare. The Supreme Court has repeatedly lamented this — in multiple judgments calling perjury 'a scourge that must be eliminated', courts have ordered action against witnesses who demonstrably lied but prosecutions rarely materialise.
Landmark Precedents
Kishori Lal v. State of MP (2007)
RELEVANCE
Courts must take cognisance of perjury under Section 193 suo motu when witnesses demonstrably lie — magistrates cannot be passive bystanders to false testimony.
Practical Scenarios
"A witness in a Sessions trial lying to help a friend escape a murder charge — up to 7 years."
"Making a false statement before a tax officer — up to 3 years."
"Falsely verifying a civil pleading knowing the facts are untrue — Section 193."
Common Queries
Because it directly threatens the delivery of justice and the liberty or rights of others in reaching a final verdict.
Yes — if the court finds a witness intentionally deviated from truth to shield an offender, proceedings under Section 193 can be initiated. Courts rarely exercise this power in practice.