Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KUMAR, ALOK ARADHE, JJ.
State of Kerala – Appellant
Versus
Suni @ Sunil – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No 4647 of 2025 [@ SLP (Crl.) No. 6238 of 2024] With Criminal Appeal Nos. 4648-4649 of 2025 [@ SLP (Crl.) Nos. 8223-8224 of 2025]
Decided On : 28-10-2025
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 154, 155 and 156 [Sections 173, 174 and 175 of BNSS] – Crime investigation – Procedure to be followed apropos a cognizable offence is vastly different from procedure relating to a non-cognizable offence – Non-cognizable case cannot even be investigated without order of Magistrate having power to try such case or commit it for trial – It is only after receipt of such order that a police officer can exercise same powers in respect of investigation, except power to arrest without warrant, as an officer in charge of a police station may exercise in relation to a cognizable case. (Para 16)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 195A [Section 232 of BNS] – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 340 [Section 379 of BNSS] – Threatening any person to give false evidence – A witness or any other person could file complaint about commission of offence under Section 195A IPC – Section 195A IPC was conceptualized as an offence distinct and different from those under Sections 193 IPC, 194 IPC, 195 IPC and 196 IPC – Those offences require complaint to be made only by those named in Section 195(1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C. and they were all non-cognizable offences – However, offence under Section 195A IPC was a cognizable offence and pertained to inducing a person to give false evidence by intimidating him/her with threat of injury either to his/her person or reputation or property or to person or reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested – Threat to a witness may be given long before he comes to Court though giving of false evidence, under such threat, is in connection with a proceeding before that Court – It is not compulsory for a threatened witness or other person to only approach Magistrate concerned to complain of offence under Section 195A IPC – As said offence is classified as a cognizable offence, process of criminal law can as well be set in motion by giving information of commission of such offence to concerned police officer under Section 154 Cr.P.C. – It is only by way of an additional remedy that Section 195A CrPC permits threatened witness or any other person acting on his behalf to file complaint before jurisdictional Magistrate to set process of criminal law in motion – Bail granted to accused set aside. (Paras 20, 28, 29 and 30)
(C) Interpretation of Statute – Doctrine of Casus Omissus – Shortfalls and lack of lucidity in statute do not constitute casus omissus – It is not permissible for Court to apply doctrine of casus omissus where language of a statute is clear and unambiguous – Words used by statute speak for themselves and it is not function of Court to add words or expressions merely to suit what Court thinks is intent of Legislature – While interpreting a statute, effort should be made to give effect to each and every word used by legislature and a construction which attributes redundancy to legislature should not be accepted except for compelling reasons, such as obvious drafting errors – However, in a situation where it is not an instance of casus omissus by draftsman of legislation and there are ample means to gather clear intention of lawmakers, statutory provisions which are seemingly lacking in clarity, but are actually not so, can be synchronized so as to give effect to legislation as intended, without Court venturing into realm of legislative drafting – Such an exercise would only require harmonious construction of provisions so as to give full effect to legislation. (Para 27)
Facts of the case:
Issue presently is as to how offence under Section 195A of erstwhile Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), has to be construed and dealt with.
Findings of Court:
In consequence, cognizance order dated 04.12.2020 passed by Principal Civil Judge & Principal Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Dharwad, shall stand restored. Dismissal of discharge application filed by petitioner in Criminal Revision Petition by Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, vide order dated 14.07.2022, shall also stand restored.
Result : Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT
SANJAY KUMAR, J
1. Leave granted.
2. In Maktool Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1999) 3 SCC 321 this Court had observed that precision and brevity are generally the hallmarks of legislative draftsmanship. The cases on hand, however, bear testimony to how laxity in such draftsmanship can generate and be a source of litigation.
3. The issue presently is as to how the offence under Section 195A of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), has to be construed and dealt with. Section 195A IPC reads as follows: -
Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause that person to give false evidence shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both;
and if innocent person is convicted and sentenced in consequence of such false evidence, with death or imprisonment for more than seven years, the person who threatens shall be punished with the same punishment and sentence in the same manner and to the same extent such innocent person is punished and sentenced.’
4. This offence was introduced in the IPC with effect from 16.04.2006, vide Act No. 2 of 2006. It found place in Chapter XI, titled ‘Of false evidence and offences against public justice’. Section 191 was the first provision in this chapter and was titled ‘Giving false evidence’. It stated that, 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. Section 192 IPC defined ‘Fabricating false evidence’ and Section 193 IPC provided the punishment therefor. It reads thus:
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 description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.’
5. The offences under paras 1 and 2 of Section 193 IPC were both non-cognizable, as reflected in the First Schedule to the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The offence under para 1 was triable by a Magistrate of First Class while the offence under para 2 thereof was triable by any Magistrate. Both the offences were bailable.
6. Section 194 IPC dealt with ‘Giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of capital offence’ and it reads as under: -
if innocent person be thereby convicted and executed. - and if an innocent person be convicted and executed in consequence of such false evidence, the person who gives such false evidence shall be punished either with death or the punishment hereinbefore described.’
The offences under para 1 and para 2 above were also non-cognizable and they were both triable by a Court of Sessions. Further, both offences were non-bailable.
7. Section 195 IPC dealt with giving or fabricating false evidence w
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
