191. Giving false evidence.

Whoever, being legally bound by an oath or by an express

provision of law to state the truth, or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any
subject, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be
false or does not believe to be true, is said to give false evidence.
Explanation 1.A statement is within the meaning of this section, whether it is made
verbally or otherwise.
Explanation 2.A false statement as to the belief of the person attesting is within the
meaning of this section, and a person may be guilty of giving false evidence by stating that
he believes a thing which he does not believe, as well as by stating that he knows a thing
which he does not know.
Illustrations
(a) A, in support of a just claim which B has against Z for one thousand rupees, falsely
swears on a trial that he heard Z admit the justice of Bs claim. A has given false evidence.
(b) A, being bound by an oath to state the truth, states that he believes a certain signature to
be the handwriting of Z, when he does not believe it to be the handwriting of Z. Here A
states that which he knows to be false, and therefore gives false evidence.
(c) A, knowing the general character of Zs handwriting, states that he believes a certain
signature to be the handwriting of Z; A in good faith believing it to be so. Here As statement
is merely as to his belief, and is true as to his belief, and therefore, although the signature
may not be the handwriting of Z, A has not given false evidence.
(d) A, being bound by an oath to state the truth, states that he knows that Z was at a
particular place on a particular day, not knowing anything upon the subject. A gives false
evidence whether Z was at that place on the day named or not.
(e) A, an interpreter or translator, gives or certifies as a true interpretation or translation of
a statement or document which he is bound by oath to interpret or translate truly, that
which is not and which he does not believe to be a true interpretation or translation. A has
given false evidence.
Essentials:
1. A person must be legally bound(a) By an oath, or any express provision of law, to state the truth; or
(b) To make declaration upon any subject
2. He must make a false statement.
3. He must
(a) Know or believe it to be false, or
(b) Not believe it to be true.
Comments :
1. Legally bound by an oath etc.1
The offence under this section involves. n2redients:-(I) A person must be legally bound: (a) by an oath, or any express provision of
law. to state the truths:co, (b) to make a declaration upon any subject. (1) He

must make a false statement. (3) He must: (a) know or believe it to be false,
or (b) not believe it to he true.
I. *1.-egall% bound by an oath or by an express provision of law, etc'.Lt
necessary that the accused should be legally bound by an oath before a
competent authority. If the Court has no authority to administer an oath the
proceedipe will be coram non judice and a prosecution for false evidence will
not stand: -Simi-lady. if the Court is acting beyond its jurisdiction it will not be
sustained: The Court must be an Indian Court, otherwise no offence is
committed for which the accused will be liable in India. *By an oath'.An
oath or asolemn affirmation is not a sine qua non in the of-fence of giving
false evidence. The offence may be committed althouoh the per-on giving
evidence has either been sworn or affirmed: Whenever in a Court of law a
person binds himself on oath to state the truth, he is bound to state the truth
and he cannot he heard to say that he should not have gone into the witnessbox or should not have made an affidavit. It is no defence to say that he was
not hound to enter the witness-box. qty an express provision of law'.Under
this clause sanction of an ojs not neces,,ary; there must be a specific
provision of law lil compelliner a pei-,>n
2
, :i. truth. Whi-Te the accused iswi,:toht b A ;- Olin,. oy an expr t ,s
provv,ion (4 laW if, e the truth he cannot be chareed' - giving false
evidtmce.' .Declaration upon any subject'. plinezcidectlayin cases the law
requires a d 1 ion from a person of verification in a T. ei ; --and, it such a
declaration is .ara-aisciy, it will come under this clause. note that the h
words any subject' de made be, , .laration must be in connection with a
subject regarding which it was to be made. ,Any statement which is false.
it is not ?ecessaryevidence that the raise . uld he material to the case in
which it is given.' If th se e statement made is de-' onedly false. the
accused is liable whether the statement had a matri not upon the matter
under enquiry before the Court.'' eriai hea ng 3..Knows or believes to be
false or does not believe to b true'.----The mat-,r sworn to must be either
take in fact, or if true, the accused musthaNiv Wither the subject-matter of
the statement is false or not, is legally 1 , s.1 knowledge i na as to se
evidence. Where a man swears to a particular fact, wit out knowing at the
tape whether the fact be true or fae, it is as much perjury as if he knew
the fact false, and equally indictable. But a man cannot be convicted of
perjury for im.-: acted rashly, or for having failed to make reasonable
inquiry with regard e facts alleged by him to be true*? wo Contradictory
Statements.Merely because a person makes two con-ictory statements*
one of which must be false. it does not make out a case of ry unless the
falsity of one of thetwo statements as charged in the indict-t is positively
provedto be so.' This is also the view of the Law Revision ittee of
England:4 Though in India a prosecution for perjury seems to be

le in such a case by virtue of illustration (e) of s. 221 Cr. P.C., it has been
to be inexpedient to do so in the interest of justice. Thus where a person
one statement under s. 164 Cr. P.C., and a diametrically opposite
statement curt during the enquiry or trial, he could in view of this
illustration be fled in the alternatie, and convicted of intentionally giving
false evidence, gh it cannot he proved which of these contradictory
statements was false, do so may he to tie him down to his previous false
statement under s. 64 and preventino him from telling t e truth L h t ti
even belatedly at the later ot enquiry or trial. The Supreme Court too has
felt that a witness \,\Asiouse_ cm has been recorded under s. 164 Cr. P.C.,
feels tied to his prio s case dent and as such his evidence has to be
approached To prost...Lu Pradesh High Court has observed in Arjunappa
3
man who has resiled from a false statement made under s. 164 him in the,
belief that it pays to tell a lie and stick to it. It IS far better) sti_rkourate
should escape punishment for having made a false statement under t474r4; that he should he induced to believe that it is to his interest,
however if7 statement may have been, to adhere to it and thereby save
himself from .nranit tion. The danger of such a course leading to the
conviction of innocent per,,,4 too great to he risked". In the instant case as
it could not he shown that itiLlulti statements of the witnesses recorded
under s. 164 Cr.P.C, were true itrid"mt, given before the Magistrate in
course of the enquiry were false, thg wm,ti uwAt plaice perjury filed
against the witnesses were directed to he withdrawn.li A witness denied
on his cross examination that there was any recording of hi. statement by
the Head Constable. He also disowned his statement recorded "Z
Investigating Officer and also stated that his statement before the
Magistnie%7 at the behest of the police. No motive was established
against the Head C for fabricating the statement of the witness. The court
came to the conclusion that the witness resiled from his statement while
giving evidence in the Court. The Court directed initiation of proceedings
against him for perjury under sect g
191.
Written statements and applications. J.% person filing a written
statement it a suit is bound by law to state the truth, and. if he makesta
statement which is falit to his knowledge or belief, or which he believes
not true, he is guilty (.)f this' offence.0 Signing and verifying an
application. for execution containingg.thatfrftathelie. statements is an
offence under this section, and it makes no di erence, d time when the
signature and verification were. appended the application Ins blank. 21)
But the verification of an application, in which the applicant make!, a false
i e statement, does not subject him 2tp punishment for this offence, if
such ap-plication does not require verification.

Incriminating statement no justification.--When a party makes a false

statement while legally bound by solemn affirmation, the fact that the
statement was one tending to incriminate himself will not justify his
acquittal on a charge 01 giving false evidence." Illegality of trial does not
purge per fact that the trial in which false evidence is given is to be
commenced de novo owing to irregularity does not exonerate the person
givi.ng false evidence in that trial from the obligation to speak the truth,
and he is liable for.giving false evidence.23 But in a Bombay case. the
proceedings in the trial at which the false evidence was given were suequently annulled in consequence of the sanction for the prosecution being
insuffi-cient. and the conviction of the accused was, therefore, reversed.24
Accused not liable for giving false evidence.---The authors of the Code
serve: "We have no punishment for false evidence given by a person when
o ob- n his
17. ma. Kurtakoce v. State of Kerala, 1995 Cr Li 2687: 1994 c.- # 4,,
3
4
5
Polite are like.). to search. A has fabricated false e\ 'deuce. COMMFNE
The wording of this section is so general as to cover any spe. of crime
which consists in the endeavour to injure another by supplying false data
upon which to rest a judicial decision. ingredients.The offence defined in
this section has three ingredients: ( Causing an circumstance to exist, or
making any false entry in any book or record. or making any document
containing a false statement. () Doino one of the above acts with the
intention that it may appear in evi-dence in a judicial proceeding. or in a
proceeding taken by law before a public sen, ant or an arbitrator. (3)
Doing such act with the intention that it 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.36 judicial proceeding'.-The Code of Criminal Procedure says
that `judiciai proceeding includes any proceeding in the course of which
evidence is or may be illtaken on oath Is. 2c01. The power to take
evidence On oath, which in-cludes affirmation as well. is the characteristic
test of 'judicial proceedin
'Judicial proceeding' means nothing more nor less than a step taken by a
Courtgin.
6
wuriic 4.4114.51-0441,600 of art jutii,cial prfit Is not e,,,wotia r cabr- who owe tut One K4t444.41. ft 24411$1 ;Italf
proceeding pc1tjal Ow redinw having reved toTZro' nut there it.s
reasoruhte prospect ,,t -11014 Pr" two. is intended to he esrcianstance; of

the case and that the. &outwits ill -x-13 2 Pubik 14.--rvasit,_Th At" a
Ptekeedng evideni.e to be topal tudicitarr"bisimi, thts itt11041 are not
confined to talsc tervant. A Govemnrietd Prf-ceiltp. hut to any proceeding
before a public ievooderice was stealth Iv removed by 11470114"i NO, oi
handed over to the pleader -c Way. alWatted Nos..... and 3. The
correspondtok laced bv act:timed rep c), watt aftervii-ard5 disco-vmd that
some papt-ts had disappeareu itom, coniespwitleixe ottws had either been
mutilated or altered, 11 held that. aecuAed Nos 2 and der " and 193 '`
were eui ty o. CIAt.t.'s case in Whial IS given though not so under s. The
word 'material' mc:ins should be the 3. ,MaterililThe taw evidence under
this secti,-,a of such a nature as to affect in any 'way threctly or indireok.
the probability ot anything to be determined by the proceeding. or the
credit of any witness. and act may be material although evidence of its
existence was improperly ;Wino nce; and if the evidence fabricated is
intended t bee rt""" ''t 4. FabritAte'.--The term fabrication refers to the b
g, the offence is committed as soon as the fabkri of us. ed aliukt"'i"1 PT
Ca.:1041 t Comp.ete- imin tic al that the judicial proceeding has not been
commenced. or tt been made of the evidence fabricated. The mere
fabricItin rider s. 193: the use of the fabricated evidence is punishablc
The evidence fabricated must be admissible evidence.''' Liability of
accused for fabricating false evidence.-1t has been held by the tgh Courts
of Calcutta'''. and Bombay41 that an offender who fabricates hist: idence
to screen himself from punishment is liable to be cons ictco Lin,ki this tion,
The Aflahabad High _Court has veered round to the same view, al'icr
tinguishing an earlier cases to the contra\ CASES.Fahriction of eit, idence
to be used in judicial proctieding.---- here the accused was convicted of
having voluntarily assisted m concealing en railway pins in a certain
person's house and field with a view to having innocent person punished
as an offendef. it was held that the accused was
conneetton with a AccuttOri Int),
t tg87) 12 Bop, 16
7
., euitty for two separate offences ._ , . tiny ill concellin ,, of fabricating
false evidence for use in 001 t, 1-, stolen pi, (A a .ai proceeding. and of
voluntaril &Ns!. ..-,- , in Char, II tiourn Ueda S 414.5r: Alm a pu iblic se- Ile
as such of certai . open itot thern and beim:, unable to do so. fabricat,enh
rvant. having been requited to prounce , himself fr(-;"1 `44(i Oe M similar
documents with the , , . 5 - , intention Of screeninf ( ( ate f )Iv - fell within
this section. Nk here al s i I)14 V ishinerit. it was held that his offeme ' lt
have been presented for registrtti document, which would otherwise nt . ,
, , oil Acre& it was held ' time. was altered for the purpose ot getting it
regis , thi,, offe_ , , had been committed The brother of an accused person
applied to the (oonLe behalf of the accused askinc, that the witnesses for

the prosecution might first,11f all be made to identify the accused. The
Court assenting to this request . he pr.(;' duce d before the Court ten or
twelve men, none of whom could be identified as the accused by any of
the witnesses. Upon being asked by the Court where the was. he pointed
out a man who accused l4k;as not the accused. It was held that he was
guilt) of fabricating false evidence. Where an accused person had unsue.
cessfully sought to obtain a woman in marriage and thereafter made and
regi, tered a writing in her favour falsely reefing that he had married her,
and p-osr: porting to convey to her a plot of land in lieu of her dowry, it
was held that he had i . acted in furtherance of his desire to obtain her
person, that as this could under the circumstances be done only by
judicial proceedings. his intention was to use the document with its false
statements, in a judicialP roLe ' * eff.d mg and thereby to mis-lead the
Court., and that he was therefore guilts of I=an. offence e nce under this
sectio The accused. who was in possession of the comPant. s house as a
yearly ten-ant. about the time the tenancy came to an end t prepared
another rent-note for a period of four years and got it registered without
the complainant's knowledge. It was held that -the accused,had fabricated
false evidence inasmuch as the rent- i note. which contained an admission
acrainst the interest of the accused, could be admitted in evidence on his
behalf:55 By - y swearing a false affidavit the e under s. 193 read w* h
accused makes himself prima facie liable it ss. 191 and 192 of the Indian
Penal Code.-6 Attempt -Facts showing that an accused se person had dug
a hole place salt therein, in order that the discovery of the salt so 1. o e
intending to in evidence against his enemy in a . viction for an attempt to
fabricate false evidence." judicial proceeding were held to Justify a con-p
aced might be used Abetment-M instigated Z to personate C and to
purchase in Cs name a stamped paper, in consequence of which the
vendor of the stamped paper en-dorsed Cs name on such paper as the
purchaser o. f it ..M acted with the intention for an attempt to fabricate
false evidence.' held that the offence of fabricating. false evidence had
been to that such endorsement might be. used against C in a judicial
Justify PMeeeding It was a conviction'
8
No fabrication f n ,41 ...4k 1 ,Igimprgrna- 4 A ',...L., A .1 e L-.+ k.11 I 1,-;,i
VLAL3 , E. I l... Material 10 result "4' errOne ro c Of pro_e?lis opinion
could be formed touching anv point ;i,,,, ,,,,,,vi, _1/4- '(,.,,,,,(1.,(;_e.ti 01,,`-,'_(.1ulln,,gi--:Where a person produced as evidence in a thier'e7wL
a"s' la "di spui el ec t ed t,.: hi in1,1(..ill the property sold was wrongl,y
numbered. arid he made a bola III It) the ownerLsh'subsequent to the
registration:* ) and \\ here of theiph:)f articles in a box in the ic.cused's
house hi. ohloc.i 'Icing to 7-11,1,kh,c' wail that and removed the articles
he claimed, 114.Arge .1/1)- one with ii);,--: it aPPear there had .been a

theft. but he did not ft1-11:,),nrti,k,-jatti,:\ontiielici(;sui?

totv,),;\,u've.ltescect)triieutillittilteadt tphr e(- 1. ) it washe. ld that there
wa,, no those cases where h ion. for perjury should he sanc-ciate and k.onscious fa fs ,lin on a matter of substance is a pnma .facie case of delibnabh, probable or likely -I .1(-)?d c y. It is al - . stance and the conviction is
rea-ncss s statement in reward' to so very necessary that the portions of
the wit-himsoll. should he specifically"istieitchouhte. has, in the opinion of
the Court. perjured in or form annexure to the show cause noticc issued to the accused so that he is in a position to furnish adequate
and proper
r,,,1: in regard thereto and be able to meet. the charge.62
No fabrication of evidence fabricated is W s inadmissible.here a policefficer, who had suppressed a document,mad e a false entry in his diary to
sup-port his assertion that he had forwarded certain documents, intending
that such en tr> might be used as evidence in his behalf that he had so ?
forwarded the docu-ment, it as held that the evidence fabricated must be
admissible evidence and as the entr) ould not be admissible in his behalf,
though contrary to his intention he was not liable. Where a police-officer
made a false entry the special dial--; relating to a case which was being
investigated by him but the document in which the alleged false entry was
made was not one which was admissible in evidence. was held that he
was not guilty.m Some doubt has been thrown on the coffect-BeSS of
these decisions by the Calcutta High Court. It is the intention that creates
the criminal offence and not the fact as to whether, under the terms of the
ia\. the document is admissible in evidence. Decisions laying down that s.
192 is limited to such cases as those in which the fabricated evidence is,
in fact, admissible un-der the terms of the law of evidence, are doubtful
and the view expressed in such -decisions might raise considerable
difficulty in cases where the Judge has im-operiv admitted in evidence a
document not admissible under the terms of the The mere fact that a
document would be ultimately inadmissible in evi-ct does not necessarily
take it out of the mischief of s. 193. No fabrication if public servant is not
authorised to hold investigation.... e rnalng up of accounts falsely with
the intention of producinla them before As and take e\ idenc orest officer
not empowered by law to hold pves ld not to be a fabrication of false
evidence.
9
ILLUSTRATION N., in an enquo before an officer deputed by a Court of .I
cast ice to ascertain on the spot the bOtindarits t)f land, makes on oath t
statement which he knows to be fake. As this enquiryis a stage of a
judicial prIxeeding, A has given false evidence. COMMENT.Sections 101
and 192 define the offences punishable under this stx-tiorL. The first pam
applies only, to cases in which the false evidence is given in a judicial

proceeding. the second to all other cases. If the offence is committed in an

stage of a .judicial proceeding it is more severely punishable than when it
is committed in a non-judicial proceeding. Intention is the essential
ingredient in the constitution of this offence. If the statement was false.
and known or belies cad by the accused to be false, it may be presu that
in making that statement he intentionally gave false evidence. In order to
make a person liable for perjury it is necessary that he should have made
3 statement on oath regarding the facts on which his statement was
based and then deny those facts on oath on a subsequent occasion.6' The
mere fact that a deponent has made contradictor statements at two
different stages in a judicial proceeding is not b- itself alwas sufficient to
justify a prosecution for perjury under section 193 but it 11111S1 bC
established that the deponent has intentionally given false statement in
any stage of the 'Judicial proceeding' or fabricated false evidence for the
purpose of being used in any stage Of the 'judicial proceeding' 69
10
loymrile. Anovitied., ,,, 4, gl virt2 or fabrication of false evidence
jritentionally. ..1 ',iv\ _ statement should he material to the case. The r, '
4.31.4 littakg, tit _ ., roved. ante-ntion is readily presumed. () - - ludleull
Prot cr - insik,,41a4b.c.,410117,,,t.- (1-,' ',a ,,)ii.. . ee ing A statement
recorded by a Magis-Itutecude ar hi an iTIL46,1,-\ -1,11,11\thesti,-ation
under s. 164 of the Criminal Proce-,.. azesarg' - talvt Niter, irlitiii -1.i -''. e
Fonduct of a villas e headman against \\horn , - ,..-iittt Trifitariira: cif
.E.1.p lansil());2\tIodethnicseseinctiao Vil ns.tacie of a judicial proceeding
lute lir:st ,:t proceedings for execution of a decree in a Court which had no
then, Li, proceedings -yr i i , entertain u._,,, ittiL PT7-dtiCed a Ored
receipt. The Court made a complaint under s. the judgment-debtor made
a false 4.141tF if tilt frimina) Procedure Code for prosecution of the
judgment-deb in ,, v. tat sal_;:i offences: it was he that if during the
course of the proceed-:1091e .. ,..,... uirrzi pireA and illegaail dan-y
offence under this or s. 471 of the tingi VAIIIL,r V., fDlik 11-; ::)7177'11714:.C2" il C. (rdid rlOplrobec-esedinoth,;ati it Was committed in or in
relation IL, Ar,- -1.1, I, 7,1:71,.: aril judicial aitz,L an,::. thfrtiort the
complaint must be'- dismiss y'hich,evidence could be legallv r.n,issed.Since enquiry conducted lit ot1f.- irc :ht.' Raihva:, Protection Forci.. a
judicial proceeding under s. 9 ai,,,,,,,,e?, properr, -17r11.4awfui
Possession) Act, 1966 furnishing- of false liranirraf, ir ::::)117Se Of such an
enquiry would apnr-loosueniutt9 an o. ffence under s. 193. arc ',Cirviri,'
.Li.Sto E'Aidence in suppo-rt of the at rail tali, vci-..: 117: the ambit of ss.
193 and 19S, I.P.C.t..ion case dufing the course an not under .cs 211 ff as..
ill., hei-f Is no institution of criminal proceeding in such a case.' (See
ZrinteTru, trite r sub-:head "Falsely Charges" under s. '2..11 infra.) Where
the ;le-zutitt aterted the offence of forgery h creating a false document

with a view to lig r ir ti sail but did not use it in the suit, it was held that
there was no question ii ,prz)g..,...riutirtl: him under s. 193, 1.P.C.. nor was
a Court complaint under s. tr:Ft(i: Cr_ p.c._ rif..,..:,,eskir in the case. The
accused could be safe] v prose--t: tom . - - 7.7:'.:ad with s 114. I.P.C.. on a
private ate complaint:6 *telt The azcesed police officer asked a police
official to forge the signature Chit, Niptricr on the carbon 'copy of the
counter-affidav it containing false aver-inenli, the fame was filed in the
Supreme Court with that forged signature. ,H. iiirxtmed 'as held guilnv of
an offence of s. 192.1' iOlohtiortc which a person is compelled to answer
and the answers which have -vie incriminate. cannot be the sole basis of a
charge of perjury. i
4.'04
t46r1C When? When an offence of perjury is committed in, or in arrir
proceedino in any Court. no Court shall take cognizance, of the elizteql an
the zrtmplaint in writing of that Court or of some other Court to
11uhich that kclitt is soboidinatc. Thus where false or Collusive re maw in
cou,. cowl pro,-ccklturs complaint by the Court isrnexlmarNare der
los(00,1(i). tk)thk t ie Court jto take cogniz.arice urkier 141- no
co::misance could be taken in the cast.. as sRueeph ontroller under the
L..1.Urban Buildings ( ictIon) ;\cl, 197_ was a Civil Court and alof lettintl,
Rent MO I' false affidavit was used in the proceedings before the Rent
Controller, a c plaint bY lum or his superior Court wide' s. 19S( 1)(b)(.i), Cr.
P.C., would he ,,(4- essary t-o initiate proeeedings muter s 1.P.C., and
without such a cc no complaint. A witness made false statement before
a corn court and the aceuscd v ere convicted. The appellate court
(Sessions Court) held
statement and directed that a notice be issuedk) that the witness had efi.
n falo him to show cause wii\ a complaint under section 193, I.P.C. be not
filed against him. The notice was issued :indafter hetring him, the court
directed that a coin.. plaint be tiled. The High Court found thit the notice
issued to him was no notice because it did not speeif the portions which
were found to be false, besides th statement was recorded ten Years ago.
The court held that it was not proper to file a complaint at that stage. The
court set aside the order of the Sessions JudgeSupreme Court cannot
convert itself into trial court.The accused filed a forged affidavit before
the Supreme Court. It was held by the three Judge Bench that the
Supreme Court could not try and convict the accused. The order of the
Supreme Court convicting the accused and sentencing him to three
months" im-prisonment was liable to be set aside because of noncompliance of procedure prescribed by Ss. 195 and 304. Cr PC and also
because of lack of original juris-diction to try a criminal offence under s.
193. IPC. Directions to the competent authority to proceed in the matter
were not issued because the accused had al-ready served out the

sentence of imprisonment imposed on him.82 SentencingEnglish case.

The accused appealed against two concurrent sentences of six ear.s.
imprisonment for perjurv.having given false evidence in two trials in which
he was accused of murder. The accused he contended that the sentence
was excessive in that insufficient credit was given for his early yuiltv plea
and confession, takima into account of theseven year maximum sentence
for perjur:,,. It was held that the repetition of the pe'r.jury in the second
trial was a se12
rik.... . Iti,iv aggravating ,iet which, togt.0, fence, merited the Neiltenees
ittipkp,t441''' CASES.-PrOdticing urtmg Person lit tes to i I banded over the
cuNtody oi ht, iiiir,,, c 01 1 1 , i _, dm impu.,, , id chores, but thereafter Ilk
eil,:tis ii;1 ,!:,.:1'1:,,1:(1:. 1:::., ':;.,::::,'It,,,i,iv''ti.:',;:.:' 11"It 1:"::::Ii:: '., tio
11M' ,,U , i P . ' . habeas corpus petition and thv cow I di,c,.(,, 1 1 k I WV
I1-1,1.11lt 111 it' pit niii. , Ili, l'ill I" to which the respouttent ilythirk-,-,1
Nom,- ,iiir, rtil ,.t 01, -ini, 1131iw '" response . teltd the court. The court
direetcd that ii ',)1111,Liuli mot 1 .c, to i.)', yo. mis I 199 be lodged
against the tespothic11, ;,,, 1 1 1 i 1, v t t to twill, i ,,,,,th th,
pi.1,10011,11,, ant file a complaint before the appu-optiiitk_. (-mut (1,1
1,,,11,,, tiiHt tit.th, ,it i, t or Ow ;111 police station to enmity lecovc, \ I
it,, (1),10,, nropriate prompt steps would he Likevi lit tin., It.!-,pck i
titti litip.(,1 ihm (Its,' rattention and
\\ tilt (tic
11,qvAtt4tis 111 the 4Iiirtti.11 (it
tt d 10 ist the hie
After a long span of time. the proseilitiou were coerced and tutored by
poll, they wr for pel
ing that they J ury' mew iti;tdc puhlw 2" any other ease '.----A state s. 164
of the Code of Ccuumal hot-v(41w ,',,mos within thvw words. not; Under