Fabricating false evidence
From Advocatespedia, The Law Encyclopedia
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 essence of the offence of fabricating false evidence under Sec. 192 consists in endeavour to injure another by supplying false data upon which a judicial decision may rest.The ingredients of the offence of fabricating false evidence are:
|Fabricating false evidence|
(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.
(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.
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 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.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.
It also lays down that whoever causes any circumstance to exist or makes any false entry in any book or record, or makes any document 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 pro¬ceeding, 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.”In the first place, although the intention forms the essence of the two offences of giving false evidence and fabricating false evidence, in the case of the former only the general intention is sufficient, but in the case of the latter particular intention is essential, viz., to cause a person in a proceeding to entertain an erroneous opinion by causing any circumstance to exist or making any false entry in a book or making any false statement.In the next place, in the case of giving false evidence the offence is committed by a person who is legally bound by an oath to state the truth. This is not necessary in the case of fabricating false evidence.In the third place, the false statement need not be on any material point, but in the case of fabricating false evidence in order to make out the offence, it must be on a material point.In the fourth place the effect of the evidence on the person who is to form an opinion upon the evidence in a proceeding is immaterial in false evidence, but it is very essential in the case of fabricating false evidence.And, lastly, there should be a proceeding being conducted in the case of false evidence, but such proceeding need not be in existence in the case of fabricating false evidence; there need only be a prospect of such proceeding where the evidence so fabricated in intended to be used.
1. Kanti Lal vs Smt. Shanti Devi And Ors. AIR 1997 Raj 230, 1998 (3) WLC 490, 1997 (1) WLN 448
2. Godrej And Boyce Manufacturing ... vs The Union Of India And Others 1991 (4) BomCR 451, 1992 CriLJ 3752
3. Kamla Prasad Singh vs Hari Nath Singh &Anr 1968 AIR 19, 1967 SCR (3) 828
4. Dr. S. Dutt vs State Of Uttar Pradesh1966 AIR 523, 1966 SCR (1) 493
5. MohmodJahed vs. The Government of NCT of Delhi (1998 (2) Crimes 325 SC)
6. Dr. Manjunath vs. N.S. Nagarathna (1998 (1) Crimes 175 Karnataka HC)