When Does a Denial in Court Become a Crime?

Does the denial of allegations made against you in legal proceedings constitute perjury? It is common for parties involved in civil or criminal matters to provide statements under oath before a court. These statements may include allegations, defences, or claims against the opposing party. The threat of perjury proceedings is often raised during legal disputes, whether the person in question is a complainant accusing another of a crime, an accused defending themselves, or a witness testifying on behalf of any party. This raises an important question: under what circumstances can courts in India initiate perjury proceedings against someone who has given a sworn statement?

This article seeks to answer this question by analysing the Supreme Court judgment dated August 13, 2024, delivered by a three-judge bench in the criminal matter of James Kunjwal (Appellant) vs. State of Uttarakhand & Another (Respondents).

To provide you with a more in-depth understanding, we have also created a detailed YouTube video on “Understanding Perjury in Court: When Denial Becomes a Legal Offense in India.” Watch the video below, where we break down the complexities of perjury law in India in a simple and practical manner.

What You’ll Learn:

✅ What constitutes perjury under Indian law?
✅ Can denying allegations amount to a legal offense?
✅ What are the principles established by the Supreme Court?
✅ When can courts initiate perjury proceedings?
✅ Key takeaways for anyone involved in legal disputes.

Now that you have gained a visual and practical understanding of perjury through our YouTube video, let’s dive deeper into legal analysis. 

To enhance your reading experience, we have included a Table of Contents below for easy navigation.

Brief facts of the Case:

James Kunjwal, an Appellant before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, was the accused before the Trial Court.

• Trial Court Proceedings:

May 2021 – The Uttrakhand Police filed an FIR under sections 376 and 504 of the IPC against the accused. The prime allegation was that the accused established relations with the complainant on the false pretext of marriage. The Sessions Court rejected the accused bail.

• High Court Proceedings:

June 2021 – The Hon’ble Court enlarged the accused on bail. Subsequently, in 2022, the complainant filed a bail cancellation application before the Hon’ble Court. In response to the bail cancellation application, the accused filed his statement on oath while denying the allegations levelled against him. While dismissing the bail cancellation application vide order dated 01 October 2022, the Hon’ble Court made observations against the accused and directed the Registrar to file a police complaint against the accused for filing a false affidavit before the Hon’ble Court. Pursuant to said order, a Criminal Complaint No.2991 of 2022, titled as State Through Registrar (Judicial), Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital v. James Kunjwal was registered against the accused.

• Supreme Court Proceedings:

The accused challenged the Hon’ble High Court order dated 01 October 2022 and sought directions to quash the order and proceedings emanating from the Criminal Complaint No.2991 of 2022.

Question of Law before the Hon’ble Supreme Court

The short question that falls for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court is whether the contents of the Accused’s affidavit filed before the High Court constitute an offence of perjury as per Section 193 IPC, as defined in Section 191 IPC.

Principles Established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

The Hon’ble Court referred to various judicial pronouncements to establish the following principles for initiating proceedings against a person who has allegedly made a false statement.

• 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);
• 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;
• There should be “deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance”;
• The Court should be satisfied that there is a reasonable foundation for the charge, with distinct evidence and not mere suspicion;
• Proceedings should be initiated in exceptional circumstances, for instance, when a party has perjured themselves to beneficial orders from the Court.

Conclusion in the Appeal filed by the Accused

• The accused statement in the counter affidavit, filed in the Application for cancellation of bail before the Hon’ble High Court, was more like a denial of the statements made in the complainant’s affidavits herein.
• Accused statements are merely denial simpliciter and thus cannot meet the threshold, particularly when no malafide intention/deliberate attempt can be understood from the statement made by the accused in the affidavit.
• The accused made statements merely to state his version of events and/or deny the version put forth by the complainant. Mere suspicion or inaccurate statements do not attract the offence of perjury against the accused.
• The statements made by the accused do not make it expedient in the interest of justice, nor constitute exceptional circumstances in which such Sections may be invoked.
• The Complainant’s response filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court does not make any particular allegation or provide any of the material that was allegedly placed before the competent prosecuting authorities or the Court with regard to the offence of perjury.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that at least three of the possible scenarios, as discussed above, in which a court would be justified in invoking these powers appear to be unmet.  Therefore, the prosecution against the accused for perjury would be unjust.  Consequently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the direction of the Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand in regard to registering a complaint against the accused and also quashed the proceedings of the Criminal Complaint No.2991 of 2022.

Takeaway

When dealing with the courts, honesty is not just a moral obligation—it’s a legal duty. However, it’s equally important to recognize that not every denial of allegations qualifies as perjury. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has made it clear that perjury proceedings are not to be invoked in a routine manner.

If someone accuses you of perjury simply for denying their allegations, don’t panic. The courts look for concrete proof and intent before taking such claims seriously. At the same time, always ensure that your statements are truthful. Truth is your strongest defense, and an understanding of the high bar set by the law ensures you don’t succumb to baseless threats. Be truthful, but don’t let the fear of perjury prevent you from asserting your rights.

What are your thoughts on this issue? Have you ever encountered a situation where denial of allegations was misinterpreted as perjury? Share your experiences or questions in the comments below – let’s continue the conversation!

Download PDF – Supreme Court judgment (James Kunjwal v. State of Uttarakhand, 2024)

Disclaimer: In compliance with the Bar Council of India guidelines, this article is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a solicitation for legal services.