Perjury and the Imprisonment of Women in India
Perjury, the act of willfully giving false evidence in court, represents a serious offense against the administration of justice in India. Multiple cases demonstrate that women, including wives in matrimonial disputes, have indeed faced imprisonment for perjury under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This report examines the legal framework of perjury prosecutions and documents significant cases where women have received jail sentences for providing false testimony.
Understanding Section 340 CrPC and Perjury Prosecution
Section 340 of the CrPC provides the procedural framework for prosecuting individuals who commit offenses affecting the administration of justice. This provision enables courts to initiate proceedings against those who give false evidence or make false statements under oath.
For prosecution under Section 340, two key requirements must be met:
- A prima facie case of false evidence or statements must be established.
- The court must determine that it is “expedient in the interests of justice” to proceed with prosecution.
Perjury itself is primarily covered under Sections 191, 192, 193, 199, and 209 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), with Section 193 specifically dealing with punishment for giving false evidence, which can extend to seven years of imprisonment.
Procedural Aspects
Courts follow a specific procedure when invoking Section 340 CrPC:
- The court must form an opinion regarding whether it appears that an offense has been committed.
- An inquiry may be conducted to establish the facts.
- If satisfied, the court may direct the filing of a complaint before a magistrate with jurisdiction.
Notable Cases of Women Imprisoned for Perjury
The Indian judicial system has numerous examples of women, including wives in matrimonial disputes, who have been sentenced to imprisonment for perjury.
Jyoti Joshi Case: Six-Year Imprisonment for False Maintenance Claims
In a significant case from Amreli, Gujarat, Jyoti Joshi was sentenced to six years in prison for providing false evidence regarding her financial status during maintenance proceedings. The court sentenced her to three years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 193 of the IPC for supplying false evidence and an additional three-year term under Section 199 for making a false statement in a declaration receivable as evidence. The court ordered these sentences to run consecutively.
Joshi had falsely claimed she was paying rent to her aunt to strengthen her case for increased maintenance from her husband. Although she succeeded in increasing her maintenance amount from ₹2,000 to ₹6,000, the court discovered her deception and initiated perjury proceedings against her.
Four-Year Sentence for Retracting Rape Allegations
In 2024, a court in Uttar Pradesh’s Bareilly convicted a 21-year-old woman under Section 195 of the IPC after she retracted her kidnapping and rape allegations during cross-examination. The court sentenced her to rigorous imprisonment for exactly 1,653 days (4 years, 6 months, and 8 days) – precisely matching the time the falsely accused man had spent in jail. Additionally, the court imposed a fine of ₹5,88,822.47, calculated based on the daily wages the falsely accused man would have earned during his imprisonment.
Supreme Court Conviction for False Rape Case
The Supreme Court found Mahila Vinod Kumar guilty of perjury for filing a false rape case against two persons. The Court upheld a three-month imprisonment sentence from the Madhya Pradesh High Court, emphasizing that courts “should strive harder to tackle the evil of perjury” which “has assumed alarming proportions in cases depending on oral evidence.”
The Supreme Court refused to accept Kumar’s defense that she was illiterate and expressed empathy for the two falsely accused men who had to “face the ignominy of a trial for a serious offence like rape.”
Other Notable Cases
- A woman in Madhya Pradesh was sentenced to a 10-year jail term for lodging a false rape case.
- A special court for crimes against women in Chandigarh convicted a woman of perjury after she retracted her rape allegations. The court imposed a fine of ₹500 while simultaneously acquitting the accused man.
- A couple (husband and wife) in Jabalpur received a seven-day imprisonment sentence for perjury after filing false rape charges against an individual. The special judge specifically noted that those who “resort to this kind of falsehood in a bid to settle scores, do not deserve to be let off.”
Perjury in Matrimonial Disputes: Judicial Approach
Matrimonial disputes have become a significant context for perjury cases, prompting courts to establish guidelines for handling such matters.
Guidelines from High Courts
- Punjab & Haryana High Court: Recognized the increasing misuse of legal provisions in matrimonial disputes and established that perjury proceedings should be reserved for cases where clear intent to mislead is demonstrated.
- Delhi High Court: Emphasized that litigants in matrimonial cases cannot use perjury proceedings as a tool for revenge. Courts may estimate incomes reasonably, but blatant falsehoods warrant legal consequences.
- Gujarat High Court: Held that when a wife misuses women-centric laws by declaring completely incorrect facts, the trial court can direct her prosecution under Section 340 CrPC. However, this action should only be taken when “expedient in the interests of justice.”
Balancing Justice with Prevention of Misuse
Courts have consistently stressed that perjury prosecution should be initiated only in “glaring cases of falsehood” rather than becoming “an instrument to satisfy the feeling of personal revenge.” Routine abuse of power under Section 340 of the CrPC to harass the other side and settle scores is not permitted.
Conclusion: Trends in Perjury Prosecution
The cases documented in this report clearly establish that women, including wives in matrimonial disputes, have faced imprisonment for perjury under Section 340 CrPC in the Indian legal system. Courts have shown willingness to impose substantial sentences, particularly in cases involving false rape accusations or deliberately misleading statements in maintenance proceedings.
While the judiciary recognizes the importance of combating perjury to protect the integrity of the justice system, recent guidance from High Courts indicates a more nuanced approach in matrimonial disputes. Courts increasingly emphasize that perjury proceedings should not become tools for harassment or revenge but should be reserved for clear and deliberate attempts to obstruct justice through false testimony.
This balanced approach aims to address the “propensity of parties embroiled in matrimonial disputes seeking proceedings under section 340 on mere surmises and suspicion with a revengeful desire to harass the other side,” while still ensuring that those who deliberately mislead the courts face appropriate consequences.