Court says complainant’s contradictory testimony on bribe handover was deliberate and material, justifying prosecution under Section 193 IPC
The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has dismissed a criminal appeal filed by Arjun Prasad Tripathi and upheld an order directing his prosecution for perjury under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code.
Justice Sanjeev S. Kalgaonkar held that the complainant in a corruption trap case had given materially inconsistent and deliberately false evidence on a crucial aspect of the prosecution story — namely, the handing over and acceptance of phenolphthalein-treated currency notes. The Court found that his testimony stood contradicted by substantive evidence on record, including phenolphthalein traces on the accused’s hands and trouser pocket, as well as the recovery of tainted notes.
The case arose from a 1987 complaint by Tripathi, who alleged that a clerk in the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board demanded Rs. 200 as illegal gratification for processing his leave and bill-related claims. A trap was laid by the Lokayukt Organisation, and the accused, Kunjan Lal Raikwar, was caught. He was later convicted by the trial court under corruption laws. During the trial, however, Tripathi partly supported the prosecution but denied the actual handing over of the bribe money and denied that the accused had accepted it.
That departure from his earlier version proved significant. The trial court, while convicting the accused, had already observed that Tripathi appeared to have made a false statement and directed initiation of proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Although the accused’s conviction was later set aside in appeal, the High Court had then left open the question of action against the complainant for giving false evidence.
In the present appeal, Tripathi argued that the contradictions were due to lapse of memory after many years, and that his police statement had been signed in haste without being properly read over to him. He also contended that a prosecution for perjury could not be initiated merely because his deposition differed from his earlier statement.
Rejecting these submissions, the High Court reiterated the settled legal position that proceedings under Section 340 CrPC can be initiated only when there is prima facie deliberate and intentional falsehood on a material aspect, and when prosecution is expedient in the interest of justice. Mere inaccuracy, omission, or suspicion is not enough, the Court said, relying on Supreme Court precedents including Chajoo Ram, Muthu Karuppan, R.S. Sujatha, Aarish Asgar Qureshi, and Himanshu Kumar.
Applying those principles, the Court held that Tripathi’s version was not a minor inconsistency but a false denial on the core issue in the trap case. His evidence was found to be belied by the surrounding scientific and recovery evidence. The Court also found his explanation unconvincing.
Concluding that the first additional sessions judge had correctly appreciated the record, the High Court held that a prima facie case for prosecution under Section 193 IPC was made out and dismissed the appeal.
Bottom Line :
Perjury - Proceedings under Section 340 CrPC can be initiated only where there is prima facie deliberate and intentional falsehood on a material aspect and prosecution is expedient in the interest of justice - Where complainant in trap case made materially inconsistent statements regarding handing over and acceptance of tainted currency notes and his deposition stood contradicted by substantive evidence including phenolphthalein traces and recovery, direction to prosecute him under Section 193 IPC held proper.
Statutory provision(s): Section 340 CrPC, Section 341 CrPC, Section 193 IPC, Section 161 IPC, Section 5(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
Arjun Prasad Tripathi v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (MP)(Jabalpur) : Law Finder Doc id # 2984506
