OFFENCE OF FABRICATING FALSE

EVIDENCE IN IPC

(5.2) CRIMINAL LAW- I (INDIAN PENAL CODE)

Submitted by-

Shreyashkar

UID No.:UG-17- 97

Academic Year 2019-20

Semester V

Submitted to-
Ms. Divita Pagey
Ms. Priyanka Mardikar

Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................... 1

LIST OF CASES ....................................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 2
RESEARCH DESIGN ............................................................................................................... 4
Research Methodology ......................................................................................................... 4
Research Questions .............................................................................................................. 4
OFFENCE OF FABRICATING FALSE EVIDENCE UNDER INDIAN LAW ......................... 5
Ingredients:........................................................................................................................... 6
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION.......................................................................................... 7
Intention that Fabricated Evidence May Appear as Evidence in a Judicial Proceeding .......... 7
Fabricated Evidence to be Material to the Result of the Proceeding ...................................... 8
DISTICTION BETWEEN GIVING FALSE EVIDENCE & FABRICATING FALSE
EVIDENCE ............................................................................................................................... 9
MISCONSTRUING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE IN ............................................................. 10
R. v JOHN SAMUEL HUMBLE ............................................................................................. 10
PUNISHMENT ....................................................................................................................... 11
CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 14
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................... 15
Books referred: ................................................................................................................... 15
Article Referred: ................................................................................................................. 15
Web References:................................................................................................................. 15
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

1. AIR All India Reporter

2. Art. Article
3. Bom. Bombay
4. Ch. Chapter
5. CrLJ Criminal Law Journal
6. CrPC Code of Criminal Procedure
7. Ed. Edition
8. Govt. Government
9. H.C. High Court
10. IPC Indian Penal Code
11. Ind. Indian
12. Ltd. Limited
13. S.C. Supreme Court
14. SCC Supreme Court Cases
15. SCR Supreme Court Reporter
16. Sec. Section
17. Maha. Maharashtra
18. Mad. Madras
19. Pun. Punjab
20. v. Versus

LIST OF CASES

1. R v. John Samuel Humble (2007) 1 Cr App R (5) 113: (2006) EWCA Crim 2775.
2. Babu Lal v State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1964 SC 725 (1964) Cr LJ 555(SC).
3. Maulud Ahmad v State of Uttar Pradesh (1964) Cr LJ 71(SC).
4. LaljiHaridas v State of Maharashtra AIR 1964 SC 1154.
5. Rampal v State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1979 SC 1184, (1979) Cr LJ 711(SC).
6. Baliram W Hiray v Justice B Lentin AIR 1988 SC 2267
7. State of Maharashtra v SK Bannu AIR 1981 SC 22, (1980) Cr LJ 1280(SC).
8. Iqbal Singh Narang v Veeran Narang AIR 1984 SC 658
9. State of Madhya Pradesh v Revashankar AIR 1959 SC 102 (1959) Cr LJ 251(SC).
10. Kamalapati Trivedi v State of West Bengal AIR 1979 SC 777

1
 INTRODUCTION

It is a well-known fact that national as well as international level newspapers reflect the
incidents of giving and fabricating evidence implicating the innocents, exempting the real
accused persons and revealing the mockery of our judicial system as well as pointing out the
sorded state of affairs of the investigating enquiring as well as adjudicating agencies. One may
refer the famous Best Bakery Cases 1, Soharabuddin case which is annihilating the Gujrat
Government, case,, Jessica Lal Murder Case 2 , Priyadarshani Mattoo Case3 , Nitish Katara4 ,
B.M.W. Case5 , Suredar Singh Case 6 , Koli Lakhan Bhai7 , Ramashray Yadav8 , Jitendar Singh9
, and Lalu Yadav Case10 . The Sophian Murder Case in this regard which have shocked the
nation and society what are the consequences and social and other effects of such incidents on
the victim's family as well as, on the accused persons, are beyond imagination to assess. Not
only this, but also the other fact which is important in this regard is the callous attitude of the
judiciary due to which such incidents are increasing at a alarming rate in our society. The
Pendency of cases in the trial courts and the delayed trials have become proverbial jokes, and
add fumes to fire. The provisions of law relating to giving and fabricating False evidence, have
been mentioned under section 191 to 195 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. Section 191, 192, 193
provides as follows :
In nut shell section 191 provides : The offence defined in this section involves three ingredients:
(1) A person must be legally bound; (i) by an oath, or any express provisions of law, to state the
truth; or (ii) to make a declaration upon any subject.
(2) He must make a false statement.
(3) He must; (i) know or believe it to be false, or (ii) not believe it to be true.
S. 192 on the other hand proves that whoever causes any circumstance to exist or makes any
false entry in any boo or record, (or electronic record) or makes any documents (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

1
A.I.R. 2004 S.C. 3114
2
India Today, May 17, 1999
3
The Hindu, Fab 20, 2007.
4
The Hindustan Times, Feb 17, 2002
5
The Hindustan Times, Jan 10, 1999
6
(2006) 9 SCC, 247.
7
(2000) Cr. L.J. 408
8
A.I.R. 200 SC 201
9
Hindustran Times, 10 Feb., 2003.
10
The Times, Jan. 10, 2009
2
false statement, so appearing in evidence, may cause any person who is 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".
The research project mainly deals with the offence of fabricating false evidence. It coherently
discusses about the about the statutory interpretation of the above offence. Furthermore it also
deals with the distinction between the giving false evidence and fabrication false evidence. The
landmark case of R v. John Samuel Humble has been deliberated al length in the present
research project. This research project also deals with the punishment attached to the above
offence.

3
 RESEARCH DESIGN

Research Methodology

Doctrinal research has been followed for the completion of this project. The research
started in the library of the university. Textbooks related to this topic have been
referred to. Several primary sources such as statutes have also been referred for this
project. The other major source of information is the internet. Articles available on the
internet concerning the project have been taken into account for this project through
the internet. Major source of information for this project have been books and internet.
Those websites have been referred to which have information regarding the topic to
explain the relevance of this topic.

Research Questions

 What is false evidence and fabricated evidence?

 Whether the definition given under these two sections is sufficient or need reframing?
 What is the difference between giving false evidence and fabricating false evidence?
 What is the punishment provided for the above offence under the Indian law?

4
 OFFENCE OF FABRICATING FALSE EVIDENCE UNDER INDIAN LAW

The essence of the offence of fabricating false evidence under Sec. 19211 of Indian Penal Code,
1860 consists in endeavor to injure another by supplying false data upon which a judicial
decision may rest. In order to constitute an offence under Section 192, first, a person should
fabricate the evidence and secondly, fabricated evidence should be used as evidence in a judicial
proceeding or in a proceeding taken by law before a public servant.

The term ‘fabrication’ refers to the fabrication of false evidence; and if the evidence fabricated
is intended to be used in a judicial proceeding, the offence is committed as soon as the
fabrication is complete; it is immaterial that the judicial proceeding has not been commenced, or
that no actual use has been made of the evidence fabricated.

The false evidence under Section 192 should be material to the case in which it is given though
not so under Section 191. The word ‘material’ means of such a nature as to affect in any way,
directly or indirectly, the probability of anything to be determined by the proceeding, or the
credit or any witness, and a fact may be material although evidence of its existence was
improperly admitted.

The Code of Criminal Procedure says that ‘judicial proceeding’ includes any proceeding in the
course of which evidence is or may be legally taken on oath. Judicial proceeding means nothing
more nor less than a step taken by a court in the course of administration of justice in connection
with a case. Executive proceedings are judicial proceedings.

The provisions of Section 192 are not confined to false evidence to be used in judicial
proceedings, but to any proceeding before a public servant. The term public servant has been
defined in Section 21 of the code.

Similarly the provisions of Section 192 are applicable in proceedings before an arbitrator. An
arbitrator is a judge appointed by the consent of the parties to adjudicate upon a matter in
controversy between them. Therefore, his proceedings are also judicial. The offence of
fabrication may arise by not only an act of commission, i.e., by making false entry in any book
or record etc; but can also take place if a material omission is made in an entry or a statement.

11
Sec. 192 reads as: Fabricating false evidence.—Whoever causes any circumstance to exist or 1[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”.
5
In order to attract the provisions of Section 192, it is not sufficient to make a false document.
The mere making of false document will not amount to fabrication. At the time of making the
false document, it is essential that the person making it should have the intention that the false
document so made should appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding or in any proceeding
taken by law. Unless this intention is proved an offence under Section 192 cannot be
established.

In order to establish the intention of using the false document in a proceeding, proximity to a
judicial proceeding pending or the likelihood that judicial proceeding is going to be initiated, is
a test by which intention to use the false document in a proceeding can be established. Even a
reasonable prospect of using the document fabricated as evidence, is sufficient to substantiate
the offence under Section 192.

Where a police-officer made a false entry in the special diary relating to a case which was being
investigated by him but the document in which the alleged false entry was made was not
produced as evidence which was admissible in evidence, it was considered that he was not
guilty of fabricating the evidence. The making up of accounts falsely with the intention of
producing them before a forest officer not empowered by law to hold an investigation and take
evidence was not considered to be a fabrication of false evidence.

Ingredients:
(i) the causing of (a) any circumstance to exist; or (b) making any false entry; or (c) of
any document containing a false statement;

(ii) with intention that it may appear in evidence in (a) a judicial proceeding; or (b) in a
proceeding taken by law before a public servant; or (c) an arbitrator, and

(iii) in order to cause any person whose duty it is in such proceedings to form an opinion
upon the evidence, to arrive at an erroneous opinion on any point material to the
result of such proceeding.12

12
Babu Lal v State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1964 SC 725 (1964) Cr LJ 555(SC).
6
 STATUTORY INTERPRETATION

The offence of fabricating false evidence has been specified in Sec. 192 of IPC. It reads as:

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”.
According to the section, there are only three ways by which a false evidence can be
fabricated—(1) by causing any circumstance to exist, as illustrated by illustration (a) under the
section, (2) by making any false entry in any book or record, as illustrated by illustration (b),
and (3) by making any document containing a false statement, as illustrated by illustration (c).
The intention of the fabricator must be that such a thing may appear before such a proceeding as
stated in the section, and may cause a person to entertain an erroneous opinion in the course of
such proceeding touching any material point.

Intention that Fabricated Evidence May Appear as Evidence in a Judicial Proceeding

In order to attract the provisions of this section, it is not sufficient to make a false document.
The mere making of false document will not amount to fabrication. At the time of making the
false document, it is essential that the person making it should have the intention that the false
document so made should appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding or in any proceeding
taken by law. Unless this intention is proved, an offence under this section cannot be
established. The offence becomes complete as soon as the fabrication is complete; it is
immaterial that the judicial proceeding has not been commenced.
In order to establish the intention of using the false document in a proceeding, proximity to a
judicial proceeding pending or the likelihood that judicial proceeding is going to be initiated, is
a test by which intention to use the false document in a proceeding can be established. Even a
reasonable prospect of using the document fabricated as evidence, is sufficient to substantiate
the offence under this section.

7
Fabricated Evidence to be Material to the Result of the Proceeding

In order to constitute an offence under this section, first, a person should fabricate the evidence.
Secondly, such fabricated evidence should be used as evidence in a judicial proceeding or in a
proceeding taken by law before a public servant. Thirdly, the evidence thus fabricated, should
be of such nature that the person who is presiding over judicial or other proceedings is made to
entertain an erroneous opinion touching any point material to the result of such proceeding
based on such fabricated evidence. If it merely causes the formation of an erroneous opinion on
a point, which is immaterial to the result of the proceeding, this section will not apply. 13

13
Maulud Ahmad v State of Uttar Pradesh (1964) Cr LJ 71(SC).
8
 DISTICTION BETWEEN GIVING FALSE EVIDENCE & FABRICATING
FALSE EVIDENCE

 The offence of giving false evidence is committed by a person who is bound by an oath
or an express provision of the law to tell the truth but it is not so in the case of
fabricating false evidence.
 In the case of giving false evidence, the false statement need not be made on a material
point but in the case of fabricating the false evidence the evidence fabricated must be on
a material point.
 The question of the effect of the evidence on the officer before whom the evidence is
given is of no consequence in the case of giving false evidence but this effect is the
important point in fabricating false evidence.
 It is essential that there should be a proceeding, judicial or non-judicial, being conducted
at the time of fabricating false evidence which only contemplates a reasonable prospect
of such a proceeding having regard to the circumstances of the case and that the
evidence fabricated is intended to be used in such a proceeding
 At last but not the least, it is the intentional giving of false evidence or the intentional
fabrication of false evidence that is punishable.
Intention is the essence of both the offences but there is a difference in the kinds of intention. In
the case of giving false evidence only general intention is sufficient, i.e., it must be intentionally
given, i.e., given knowing it to be false and with the intention of deceiving the person
conducting the proceeding to believe the statement to be true but in the fabrication of false
evidence there is a particular intention to use the fabricated evidence in a proceeding and to
procure the formation of a wrong view on a material point.

Miscellaneous allied offences. The following offences are punishable in the same way as the
giving of false evidence: Issuing or signing any certificate required by law to be given or signed
or by law made evidence of any fact knowing or believing that such certificate is false in any
material point (Section 197); using or attempting to use as true a certificate known to be false in
material point (Section 198); false statement made in any declaration which touches any
material point and which is by law receivable as evidence (Section 199); using as true any such
declaration known to be false in any material point (Section 200).

9
 MISCONSTRUING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE IN
R. v JOHN SAMUEL HUMBLE

In R v. John Samuel Humble 14 it was held that perverting the course of justice by falsely
sending letter claiming responsibility for series of murders is punishable.
Eight years of imprisonment upheld for perverting the course of justice where the appellant sent
letters and a tape recording to the prosecution claiming responsibility for a series murders which
he has not committed. The appellant pleaded guilty to four counts of doing acts tending and
intended to pervert the course of justice. Over a period of three years between 1975 and 1978, a
series of murders were committed by a person other than the appellant. The appellant wrote
letter to the chief investigating officer and a newspaper in which he claimed to be responsible
for the murders. Subsequently the appellant sent tape recording claiming to be the murderer.
Other indications suggested that the writer of the letters and the maker of the tape recording was
the murderer. As a result police inquiries were conducted in the area associated with the accent
of the maker of the tape recording.
After a further murder the appellant telephoned to police to say that the letters and tape
recording were hoaxes, but did not supply any further information. Eventually the person
responsible for the murders was convicted. The appellant was finally identified by DNA
samples and eventually confessed.
The appellant was unable to give any logical account of his motivation. He was sentenced to a
total of eight years’ imprisonment.
The court held the case to be almost unique. It had had possibly fatal consequences. The
offences were carefully planned and had the effect intended for them. There was no guideline
for sentences in this area. The issues of personal mitigation and the passage of time lost much of
their importance in a case of this seriousness. It could not be said that the sentence was wrong in
principle or clearly excessive. The court eventually dismissed the appeal.

14
(2007) 1 Cr App R (5) 113: (2006) EWCA Crim 2775
10
 PUNISHMENT

The punishment for the above offence has been entailed in Sec. 193 15. Section 193 reads as:
Punishment for false evidence.—Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a
judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a
judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine, and whoever intentionally gives or
fabricates false evidence in any other case, shall be punished with imprisonment of either de-
scription for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation 1.—A trial before a Court-martial; is a judicial proceeding.
Explanation 2.—An investigation directed by law preliminary to a proceeding before a Court of
Justice, is a stage of a judicial proceeding, though that investigation may not take place before
a Court of Justice.
Explanation 3.—An investigation directed by a Court of Justice according to law, and
conducted under the authority of a Court of Justice, is a stage of a judicial proceeding, though
that investigation may not take place before a Court of Justice. Illustration A, in any enquiry
before an officer deputed by a Court of Justice to ascertain on the spot the boundaries of land,
makes on oath a statement which he knows to be false. As this enquiry is a stage of a judicial
proceeding. A has given false evidence.
Section 193 prescribes a penalty for the two offences namely false evidence, described in
Section 191 and fabricating false evidence, described in Section 192. The first para of Section
193 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 any stage of a judicial proceeding it is
more severely punishable than when it is committed in a non-judicial proceeding. Section 193
takes into consideration the difference between a crime perpetrated in the presence of the court
which is the sanctuary of truth, before whom the gravest issues are often tried, and of those
before whom matters of comparatively smaller consequences come up for decision.
As per this section, a complaint under s 193 for giving or fabricating false evidence in a judicial
proceeding can be entertained, only if forwarded by the court concerned. This is because in view
of the higher sentence provided for offences committed in the course of judicial proceedings, the
legislature thought it fit that adequate procedural safeguard should also be given to the accused.
Since, in respect of giving false evidence or fabrication of evidence in proceedings other than
judicial proceedings, a lesser sentence has been prescribed as safeguard, provided under s 195.

15
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
11
16
Section 193 provides the punishment in respect of giving or fabricating false evidence in
judicial proceedings is considered much more serious in character and hence, a higher
punishment of seven years imprisonment and it provides lesser punishment of three years
imprisonment for similar offence of giving or fabricating false evidence in other proceedings, in
other words, proceedings other than judicial proceedings.
Intention is the essential ingredient in the constitution of the offence under Section 193. If the
statement was false, and known or believed by the accused to be false, it may be presumed 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 a statement
on oath regarding the facts on which his statement was based and then deny those facts on oath
on a subsequent occasion.
The mere fact that a deponent has made contradictory statements at two different stages in a
judicial proceeding is not by itself always sufficient to justify a prosecution for perjury under
Section 193 but it must be established that the deponent has intentionally given false statement
in any stage of the ‘judicial proceeding’ or fabricating false evidence for the purpose of being
used in any stage of the judicial proceeding’. It is not necessary that the false statement should
be material to the case.
The gist of the offence is the giving or fabrication of false evidence intentionally. Where
knowledge of falsity is proved, intention is readily presumed, mere discrepancies or
contradictions in evidence due to confusion of mind or failure of memory cannot be regarded as
false evidence given intentionally.
Though, the term ‘Judicial proceeding’ is not defined in IPC, there are three explanations to
Section 193. Explanation (1) provides that a trial before a court martial is a judicial proceeding;
explanation (2) lays down that an investigation directed by law, preliminary to a proceeding
before a court of justice, is a stage of a judicial proceeding, though that investigation may not
take place before a court of justice; this explanation takes in, for instance, committal
proceedings.
The question whether a particular proceeding before particular authorities would amount to a
judicial proceeding or not under s 193, has engaged courts in several cases. In Lalji Haridas v
State of Maharashtra17 , the question before the Supreme court was whether the proceeding
before an income tax officer would amount to judicial proceeding or not. In this case, the
accused and the complainant were long time business partners. When the matter came up before
the Supreme Court, the court held that s 37(4) of the Income-tax Act 1961, specifically provided
16
LaljiHaridas v State of Maharashtra AIR 1964 SC 1154
17
Rampal v State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1979 SC 1184, (1979) Cr LJ 711(SC).
12
that any proceeding before an income tax authority shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding
within the meaning of s 193, IPC, and hence s 195, Crpc, would apply. 18
In State of Maharashtra v SK Bannu19 , in the bail proceedings, the affidavit purported to be
sworn by the surety, turned out to be false. The question which arose before the Supreme Court
was whether proceedings in a bail application were judicial proceedings or not. The Supreme
Court held that while deciding the question of bail, the magistrate cannot but be regarded as a
court act ing judicially, notwithstanding the fact that the offence of the accused is still under
investigation by the police or has progressed to the stage of an enquiry or trial by the
magistrate.20
In Iqbal Singh Narang v Veeran Narang 21 , the Supreme Court held that proceedings before a
Rent Controller, a statutory authority having quasi-judicial powers, are not judicial proceedings
for the purpose of s 193 of the IPC, as it is not a ‘court’ within the meaning of s 195(1) of the
Crpc, Hence, any statement made to the official in such proceedings cannot be the basis for
initiating proceedings under s 193 of the IPC.
Under Explanation (3) an investigation directed by a court of justice according to law and
conducted under the authority of justice is a stage of a judicial proceeding, though that
investigation may not take place before a court of justice. This explanation covers enquiries
before officers deputed by courts of justice to ascertain, for instance, on the spot, the boundaries
of land.
Thus, the three explanations of Section 193 include within the expression ‘judicial proceeding’
certain proceedings, which on a strict construction of the said expression, may not have been
included under it. However, there is definition of ‘judicial proceeding’ under Section 2(i) of the
CrPC, which states that a judicial proceeding includes any proceeding in the course of which
evidence is, or may be legally taken on oath. No prosecution can be instituted for an offence
under Section 193 without the previous complaint of the court or public servant concerned as
required by Section 195 of the CrPC.

18
No longer good law in respect of applicability of s 195, Crpc, in view of introduction of s 195(3) in the CrPC;
,Baliram W Hiray v Justice B Lentin AIR 1988 SC 2267
19
AIR 1981 SC 22, (1980) Cr LJ 1280(SC).
20
Kamalapati Trivedi v State of West Bengal AIR 1979 SC 777
21
State of Madhya Pradesh v Revashankar AIR 1959 SC 102 (1959) Cr LJ 251(SC).
13
 CONCLUSION

The close analysis of above sections reveals a bitter truth that the foundation of giving and
fabricating false evidence is to cause injury or damage to other party and interfere in the
judicial proceedings before the court or tribunal. In this regard it can further be said that the
Court procedure of calling and hearing of cases is based on the convention. Everyday heavy
posting or cases on unscientific basis results in futile exercise, which indeed is causing wastage
of precious judicial working hours. There are no rules prescribing the manner in which trial
Judge has to set his board for calling of cases and for hearing of case. It is constitutionally
acknowledged that speedy trial is a fundamental right. When the docket of Judge is bursting
with unmanageable volume of cases, quite naturally the judge is placed in an unmanageable
and uncomfortable position resulting in delayed trials. In the present scheme of Court practice,
we evidently see an outdated practice of posting of a case for evidence on tentative basis. Since
without serious intention of taking up the case for evidence compelling unnecessary attendance
of the accused would be an undue and an avoidable harassment, in a way it affects the life and
liberty and infringes the constitutional right. The attention of all concerned comes to be
attracted to the malaise of prosecution witness turning hostile, resulting into acquittal, only
when such a thing happens in a case having acquired public gaze or prominent publicity or
involving an eminent personality either as a victim or as an accused. The question is why do
prosecution witness turn hostile so often now a days ? Is it weight of money, muscle power or
influence which is the root cause of the problem or is it the failure of the police to investigate
cases properly, fairly and impartially ? An eye witness makes a categorical statement before
investigating police officer about his/ her having seen occurrence or/ and even having
apprehended culprits. For practical purpose, a statement of a witness recorded by police during
investigation is, therefore, per se not admissible in evidence and has to be left out of
consideration by a court while deciding a matter, after statement of a witness is recorded in
court. Due to the delay in recording and examination of the witness in the court, the witnessed
hesitate to come to the Court, and when forced them to appear give false statements, which
affect the Judgments adversely and change the scales of justice, moved by the various effects,
social, physical, legal and others, the researcher thought it proper to make it as a subject matter
of her research.

14
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books referred:

 P.S. A. Pillai, Criminal Law (19th ed.), Pub. Butterworths (India)

 H.S. Gaur, Penal Law of India (Vol. 2, 10 th ed.), Universal Law Publication.
 N.V. Paranjape, Criminology and Penology (12 th ed), Central Law Publication
(Allahabad).

Article Referred:
 Justice K. Shreedhar Rao, "Criminal Justice System Required Reforms", Criminal
Law Journal (Vol. 108, 2002).

 K. Pattabhi Ramaroo, "Striptease Cabarets and Crippled Law", Criminal Law Journal
(2007).

 P.R. Thakur, "Why do Prosecution Witness NowaDays fall flat so often", Criminal
Law Journal (2002).

 B.P. Singh and S.S. Baisoya, "Shooting Incident Proved A Concocted Story : A case
report", Indian Police Journal (Vol. 1, OctDec. 2004).

Web References:

 https://www.manupatrafast.com/
 https://www.legitquest.com/
 nlist.inflibnet.ac.in
 http://www.scconline.com
 https://www.lexisnexis.com/in
 https://www.casemine.com/
 https://www.dauniv.ac.in
 https://heinonline.org

15