Hostile Complainant Facing Perjury Cannot Escape Liability for Contradictory Evidence: Madhya Pradesh HC

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reinforced the accountability of witnesses in corruption cases, ruling that a complainant who deliberately resiles from their allegations to benefit an accused cannot evade prosecution for perjury. This decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to curbing the menace of false evidence that often undermines the integrity of the criminal justice system.

A single-judge bench of Justice Sanjeev S Kalgaonskar was hearing a criminal appeal filed under Section 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The appellant challenged an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa, which directed the filing of a complaint against him for an offence punishable under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 after he turned hostile in a trap case involving the Lokayukt Organization.

Key Takeaways

Stringent Check on Hostile Witnesses

Witnesses who deliberately give false evidence on material facts to derail a prosecution will face the full force of perjury laws.

Interest of Justice Paramount

Prosecution for perjury is not automatic for minor inaccuracies but is essential when the falsehood is deliberate and affects the outcome of a trial.

Evidentiary Consistency Required

Contradictory statements between police complaints and court testimony, when contradicted by objective material like chemical trap results, form a solid foundation for Section 193 proceedings.

Court's Analysis on Perjury and Witness Conduct

The court examined whether the trial court erred in initiating proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It noted that the appellant had initially alleged a demand for illegal gratification but later resiled from his allegations regarding the actual handing over and receipt of tainted currency notes during the trial, despite chemical traces proving the accused's involvement.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "A complaint under Section 340 CrPC will be made when-

1. A witness intentionally and deliberately gives false evidence.

2. The false evidence was material to the case.

3. The Court finds it expedient in the interest of justice to prosecute such witness."

The Court has following directions:
"The first Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa whereby a direction was issued to file complaint for prosecution of the appellant - Arjun Prasad Tripathi for offence punishable under Section 193 of the IPC and the appellant was directed to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewa."

Ratio

The court held that prosecution for perjury under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 must be ordered when there is a prima facie case of deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance. While courts should not prosecute for innocent inaccuracies, they must intervene when a party consciously provides false evidence to secure a beneficial order for an accused, as such conduct defeats the very purpose of the judicial process.

Background

The matter originated in 1987 when the appellant filed a complaint alleging a demand for a bribe of Rs. 200 by a clerk of the MPEB. A trap was conducted where phenolphthalein-treated notes were recovered from the accused. However, during the trial, the appellant gave inconsistent versions regarding the transaction, leading to the accused's acquittal by the High Court in a separate appeal.

Referring to the standard for perjury, the Court relied on Himanshu Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh ( "(2023) 12 SCC 592": 2022 CaseBase(SC) 679), noting that proceedings should be initiated in exceptional circumstances where perjury is committed deliberately. The High Court found that the appellant’s explanation that he signed documents in a hurry was unconvincing given the substantive material on record. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the order for the appellant's prosecution.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1559 of 2009
Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-JBP:74857
Case Title: Arjun Prasad Tripathi Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Shri Ramanath Dwivedi - Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Shri Abhinav Shrivatava - Advocate

Source: 2026 CaseBase(MP) 23861