Section 192 defines “Fabricating False Evidence” It defines:
Sec. 192. Fabricating false evidence:
Whoever causes any circumstance to exist or makes any false entry in any book or record, or electronic record or makes any document or electronic record] containing a false statement, intending that such circumstance, false entry or false statement may appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding, or in a proceeding taken by law before a public servant as such, or before an arbitrator, and that such circumstance, false entry or false statement, so appearing in evidence, may cause any person who in such proceeding is to form an opinion upon the evidence, to entertain an erroneous opinion touching any point material to the result of such proceeding is said “to fabricate false evidence”.
image source: pocketperspectives.files.wordpress.com
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Illustrations:
(a) A puts jewels into a box belonging to Z, with the intention that they may be found in that box, and that this circumstance may cause Z to be convicted of theft. A has fabricated false evidence.
(b) A makes a false entry in his shop-book for the purpose of using it as corroborative evidence in a Court of Justice. A has fabricated false evidence.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
(c) A, with the intention of causing Z to be convicted of a criminal conspiracy, writes a letter in imitation of Z’s hand-writing purporting to be addressed to an accomplice in such criminal conspiracy, and puts the letter in a place which he knows that the officers of the police are likely to search. A has fabricated false evidence.
Important Points:
A. Ingredients:
The essential ingredients of the offence, fabricating false evidence, under Section 192, are,—
ADVERTISEMENTS:
(i) That a false entry must be made in a book or record or a false statement must be made in a document;
(ii) That a false entry or false statement must be made with a certain intention, namely that the false entry or false statement may appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding or any other proceeding taken by law before a public servant;
(iii) That a false entry or statement so appearing in evidence may cause any person in such proceeding who has to form an opinion upon the evidence to entertain an erroneous opinion;
(iv) That the erroneous opinion must be touching upon a material point, that is to say a point material to the result of the said proceeding.
B. Mohmod Jahed vs. The Government of NCT of Delhi (1998 (2) Crimes 325 SC)
Brief Facts: The police arrested and detained the appellant under TADA Act and Arms Act on 6-3- 1990. The trial Court believed the prosecution and convicted the appellant. The appellant filed the appeal pointing out that the police falsely fabricated the evidence.
On verification it was found that the police daily diary showed interpolations in time and date of incident to cook the story of apprehension at 5 p.m. on 8-3-1990 with unauthorised arms and ammunition.
Judgment: The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant and ordered the Delhi Government to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation with liberty to recover erring police officers and also directed to take necessary steps for inquiry and trial against the erring police officers under Sees. 193, 195 and 211 of I.PC.
C. Dr. Manjunath vs. N.S. Nagarathna (1998 (1) Crimes 175 Karnataka HC)
Brief Facts: One Mahalakshmi took LIC policy. She underwent treatment with the petitioner Dr. Manjunath, who prescribed certain medicines. Mahalakshmi applied to LIC for medical reimbursement basing on the prescriptions. LIC refused to pay. Mahalakshmi filed a complaint before the Consumers Forum at Thumkuru bearing No. DCFT 284/95 against LIC.
While the consumer dispute was pending before the Forum, the respondent Nagarathna, representing LIC filed criminal case before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thumkuru alleging that Dr. Manjunath issued a false prescription and fabricated false evidence. The Magistrate convicted Dr. Manjunath under Section 193. Manjunath appealed to the Karnataka High Court.
Judgment:
The Karnataka High Court quashed the conviction under Section 193 against Dr. Manjunath. It held that while the dispute is being under enquiry before a Court the question of fabricating false evidence does not arise. The respondent filed criminal complaint contrary to the provisions of law and said complaint also was premature.
D. Kingu vs. King Emperor (AIR 1927 Mad. 199):
The accused had to pay certain amount to the complainant. Accused sent white papers cut into currency notes size and pinning one original note on the upper side and one original note in the second side. He sent these white papers and currency notes under registered post to the complainant.
The accused showed the registered receipt and acknowledgement purporting he had sent currency notes to the complainant. The Court held the accused was guilty of offence punishable under Section 192, holding that the accused fabricated false evidence.
