Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In -- 'R. v. Wheatland', (1838) 8 Car & P 238 (D), the accused made one statement before a Magistrate and a wholly contradictory statement at the Quarter Sessions, he was prosecuted for perjury in respect of the latter statement and it was proved that the falsity of the latter statement could not be proved merely by the fact that it was contradicted by the earlier statement,

4. 'Mens rea' is an essential ingredient of the offence of perjury; the mere fact that a statement made by a witness turns out to be wrong or inaccurate does not make him liable to punishment. He must make the statement deliberately and must know or believe it to be false or must not believe it to be true. It is not difficult to imagine a witness's making two statements which are contradictory to each other and one of which he-does not know or believe to be false. In -- "K. v. Bankat Ram Lachhi Ram', 28 Bom 533 (E) the question was whether the joint family property had been partitioned among the members and the accused on one occasion deposed that it had been partitioned and on another occasion that it had not been partitioned and it was held that he might have honestly held the two views and he was held not to have committed perjury by making the conflicting statements. A witness may innocently make a statement which is incorrect or wrong and may later correct himself; simply because he has made two contradictory statements it cannot be said that he has committed perjury-It was remarked by Roberts, J. in -- U. S. v. Norris', (1937) 81 Law Ed 808 (P) that "this is not to say that the correction of an innocent mistake, or the elaboration of an incomplete answer, may not demonstrate that there was no wilful intent to swear falsely."

In the case of -- 'Palani Palagan (H)' the facts were exactly similar to those in the present case and the conviction of the witness for perjury was maintained. Benson, J. stated at page 61 that there was nothing to justify the distinction suggested between two contradictory statements made in two separate trials and two contradictory statements made in the same trial in the same Court. On page 65 he observed:

"The essence of the offence lies in the intention to give false evidence, and that intention may, I think, just as well exist when the contradiction is in various stages of the same deposition as where it is in different stages of the same proceedings..... To consider whether the false statement was made in the course of one deposition or in the course of two separate depositions seems to be irrelevant, and calculated to obscure the real question."

Wilson, J. concurring with him, said on p. 946:

"I can see no sufficient distinction in principle between such contradiction in one deposition and in two. If it is an offence under Section 193 to make two contradictory statements, one or other of which must be false, and to do so with a guilty intention, on two distinct occasions, I think it must be equally an offence to make them on one occasion."

7. No question of 'locus paenitentiae1 should arise when an accused is prosecuted for making two contradictory statements. It is impossible to lay down that a witness, who deliberately makes a false statement, is entitled to purge the offence by repentance and retraction. The offence of perjury once committed cannot be purged.

In -- 'Teoomal's case (L)' also it was observed that witnesses should be encouraged to speak the truth but within reasonable time. Witnesses should certainly be encouraged to speak the truth but not by ignoring perjury committed by them or by refusing to punish them for it. They should not be encouraged to tell lies. I have already pointed out that the offence of perjury is committed as soon as the false statement is deliberately made. Contradictory statements, whether made in the same trial or on the same day or in the same deposition are not always made in the same circumstances and one rule cannot govern all cases of contradictory statements. A subsequent statement may show that the previous statement was untrue, but was not made deliberately with the intention of deceiving the Court; in that case no offence of perjury is at all committed by making the previous statement and there does not arise any question of 'locus paenitentiae'.