Perjury
Perjury legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Discretionary power of Court under section 476, Cr.P.C, to take cognizance stated.
Historically the main reasoning given by the superior Courts in Pakistan for not applying the rule of 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' related to the social conditions prevalent in the country
Superior Courts felt that generally witnesses testifying in criminal cases did not speak the whole truth and had a tendency to exaggerate or economise with the real facts, thus, there was a danger of miscarriage of justice in the sense that a real culprit may go scot free if a court disbelieved the whole testimony on account of reaching the conclusion that the testimony was false in some respect
Such an approach, which involved extraneous and practical considerations, was arbitrary besides being subjective and the same could have drastic consequences for the rule of law and dispensation of justice in criminal matters
Court of law could not grant a licence to a witness to tell lies or to mix truth with falsehood and then take it upon itself to sift grain from chaff when the law of the land made perjury or testifying falsely a culpable offence
Survey of case-law from the superior Courts of Pakistan wherein it was held that the rule of 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' was not applicable in Pakistan provided.
Truth was the foundation of justice and justice was the core and bedrock of a civilized society and, thus, any compromise on truth amounted to a compromise on a society's future as a just, fair and civilized society
Supreme Court directed that the rule 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' shall henceforth be an integral part of the country's jurisprudence in criminal cases and the same shall be given effect to, followed and applied by all the courts in the country in its letter and spirit, and that a witness found by a court to have resorted to a deliberate falsehood on a material aspect shall, without any latitude, invariably be proceeded against for committing perjury
Application was disposed of accordingly.
Giving testimony its due importance and weight was an obligatory duty (under Islam) and those who stood firm in their testimonies were among the people of righteousness and faith
Among the necessities of faith was giving truthful testimony even if against oneself or a relative
If there were no other witnesses that would enable justice to be done and there was a fear that someone's right may be lost, it then became the individual responsibility of the few available witnesses to testify
Islam not only enjoined giving testimony, it also forbade concealing it because concealing evidence was something that was disapproved in Islam and detested by its nature
Giving false testimony had many evils for it supported falsehood against truth and promoted injustice and aggression against justice; it also effaced fairness and equity and posed danger to public safety and security
Corpus of traditions of the Holy Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him), also provided that false testimony was one of the greater sins.
Perjury and fabrication of documentary evidence were to be taken very seriously by Courts, as this was necessary for ensuring that the administration of justice was not undermined and baseless and false litigation was also deterred.
All courts that are empowered to record evidence, may it be in the exercise of civil, criminal, or revenue jurisdiction have independent jurisdiction to take cognizance of perjury committed in any proceedings before it
If offence of perjury is committed before more than one judicial forum or court, each judicial forum or court is competent to take cognizance in its own right
Cognizance of perjury by one court does not regulate or affect cognizance or otherwise of the offence by any other judicial forum or court.
During proceedings in suit for recovery of dowry articles filed by wife, husband relied upon certain receipts of gold ornaments which the jeweller denied to have issued
Wife filed application for initiation of proceedings against husband for giving false evidence before Family Court
Family Court as well as Lower Appellant Court declined to initiate proceedings of perjury against husband
Validity
Family Court was categorized as Civil Court, empowered to record evidence, thus Family Court being Civil Court could take cognizance under Ss.195 and 476, Cr.P.C. which provisions were a check on litigant and parties
Such provisions armed the courts with authority to commit any person who had misled court by producing perjured evidence
Courts exercising civil, criminal or revenue jurisdiction were competent to try offence punishable under numerous provisions of Penal Code, 1860, enumerated therein including S.193, P.P.C. (punishment for giving false evidence), when such offence was alleged to have been committed in or in relation to any proceedings in any court which was competent to take cognizance
When any person dared to give false evidence in any court competent to record evidence, would expose himself to be committed for perjury
High Court set aside orders passed by Family Court and Lower Appellate Court and application under Ss.193/468/220, P.P.C. filed by wife was granted
High Court directed the Family Court to take cognizance of the offence, try the same itself an/or forward the same to the court having jurisdiction in terms of S.476-A, Cr.P.C.
Petition was allowed accordingly.
Accused was Investigating Officer of a criminal case and F.I.R. under S.193 P.P.C. was registered against him for recording a false statement of a witness during the investigation
Validity
Action under S.193 P.P.C. could only be taken against any person after conclusion of trial
Any action taken during trial or at investigation stage would be violative of law
Neither accused had given any false statement on oath before any court of law nor he resiled from any previous statement made by him
Accused as an Investigating Officer had only recorded a statement of witness under S.161, Cr.P.C. and mere recording of statement given by witness did not in any way constitute an offence punishable under S.193, P.P.C., nor it was scheme of law to launch a prosecution of perjury against any person before conclusion of trial
Trial against the accused had not even commenced and the case was at investigation stage
Chief Court should have differentiated investigation and trial before taking any action or giving its findings
Chief Court did not appreciate relevant provision of law properly and had pre-determined guilt of accused
Judgment passed by Chief Court was set aside and F.I. R. against accused was quashed
Appeal was allowed.
Witness having not given statement in Court on oath or solemn affirmation, cannot be proceeded against for perjury.
Perjury Presumption is against perjury in all civilised systems of jurisprudence.
"Perjury", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/14775
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Perjury"
P L D 1999 Peshawar 66
ABDUL HALEEM‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Court:1992 M L D 1464
NAJAB KHAN‑‑‑Applicant Versus MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ RAJPUT and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents
Court: KarachiP L D 1984 Supreme Court 44
Present : Aslam Riaz Hussain and Nasim Hassan Shah, JJ Versus Criminal Petition No. 285 of 1983, decided on 12th October, 1983.
Court:P L D 2013 Sindh 551
MUHAMMAD YAKOOB GOPANG — Applicant Versus PRESIDING OFFICER, HYDERABAD and others — Respondents
Court: High CourtP L D 2013 Sindh 194
Mst. MARIUM HAYAT — Petitioner Versus AHMED SAROOSH and 2 others — Respondents
Court: High Court2010 G B L R 266 (2)
FAQIR MUHAMMAD, SUB-INSPECTOR POLICE — Petitioner Versus THE STATE through Police Station Astore and another — Respondents
Court: Supreme Appellate Court1992 M L D 2453
ISLAM‑UD‑DIN‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Court: Supreme Appellate Court2025 M L D 1879
SUmera Rasheed — Petitioner Versus The state and others — Respondents
Court: Lahore (Bahawalpur Bench)1982S66
KHAIR DIN‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
Court: Ss. 161 & 193 read with Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)‑Perjury = Court observations ‑ Complainant after making complaint against petitioner and moving machinery of law against him prima facie perjuring himself at trial in order to help accused petitioner and brazenly denying his statements made before Police Inspector and Magistrate‑Fact of such persons being hardly even proceeded against for perjury giving rise to impression in general public that any one can make a false statement in a Court of law with impunity‑Such feeling not only not justified but in effect, held, undermines public confidence in judicial procass‑Case, held further, fit case for consideration by trial Court of propriety of prosecuting complainant for perjury. Perjury.P L D 1986 Peshawar 32
NAZAR MUHAMMAD‑‑Accused/Appellant Versus THE STATE-Respondent
Court: ‑‑ S. 193‑Criminal Procedure Cock"(V of 1898), Ss. 164 & 476 (1) Oaths Act (X of 1873) as amended by Federal Laws (Revision and Declaration) Ordinance (XXVII of 1981), S. 6‑Perjury‑Accused convicted for perjury for resiling‑from his statement under S. 164, Cr. P. C,.‑Such statement recorded on solemn affirmation and not on Oath and as such was not a stai0ftt to be used as a piece of evidence against accused‑Record not showing any positive evidence to hold that accused had given false evidence at trial and his state ment under S. 164, Cr. P. C. was true‑‑Trial Court proceeding with case under S. 193, P. P. C. before concluding trial in murder case wherein accused allegedly resiled from his statement and there being no positive finding that accused had given false evidence‑Convic tion under S. 193, P. P. C., held. could not be maintained in circumstances.