The main legal point established is that no criminal liability can be fastened under Section 193 IPC based solely on a statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

ORDER :

cognizance was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for the offence punishable under Section 193 IPC and issued process to the accused/revision petitioner by order dated 31.07.2023 on a complaint submitted by the investigating officer. It is under challenge in this revision by the accused.

2. Heard Sri.T.M.Raman Kartha, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Sri.K.P.Satheesan, the learned senior counsel appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation.

3. It is pertaining to a sensational case registered in connection with the death of a famous musician by name Balabhaskar. The officer of Central Bureau of Investigation, who investigated the crime in RC 3(S)2020/CBI/SCB/ TVM lodged a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate to take cognizance against the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 193 IPC on the allegation that he had given a false statement before the complainant/investigating officer deliberately and purposefully with the intention to mislead the investigation. It was taken on file by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and after hearing both the parties, cognizance was taken against the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 193 of the IPC and process was issued to him. It is submitted that the cognizance was taken by overlooking the provision and the ingredients which would constitute the offence punishable under Section 193 IPC. To resolve the issue, it is necessary to extract Section 193 IPC, which runs as follows:

“Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any 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.” (emphasis supplied)

4. The section deals with a situation, wherein false or fabricated evidence was tendered or intended to be used in any judicial proceeding. The main ingredient which would constitute the offence punishable under Section 193 IPC is the involvement of “evidence” either fabricated or false given or tendered intentionally in any stage of a judicial proceeding or for the purpose of being used in any stage of judicial proceeding. The term ‘evidence’ stands for any relevant material either documentary or oral, which can be taken note of based on the principle of relevancy and reliability in a judicial proceeding or before a competent authority empowered to adjudicate a matter in issue either civil, criminal or quasi judicial dealt under the provisions of the Evidence Act. The first limb of Section 193 IPC deals with false evidence either given or tendered and the second limb deals with the fabrication of false evidence for the purpose of being used as “evidence” in a judicial proceeding. What is dealt under Section 193 IPC is centering around the expression “evidence” either false or fabricated. In order to bring the matter within the sweep of Section 193 IPC, there should be “evidence” either false tendered at any stage of judicial proceeding or fabricated for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding. Then comes the question as to the permissibility of fastening criminal liability under Section 193 IPC to a statement, which by its nature will not come under the purview of “evidence”. A statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C by the Investigating Officer will not form part of evidence either before a court or a competent authority empowered to take evidence, but will remain an unsigned statement recorded by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation and it cannot be brought under the purview of “evidence” or “piece of evidence” and cannot be used for any pur