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.
Explanations
1. A statement is within the meaning of this section whether it is made verbally or
otherwise.
2. A false statement as to the belief of the person attesting is within the meaning of
this section, and a person may be guilty of giving false evidence by stating that
he believes a thing which he does not believe, as well as by stating that he
knows a thing which he does not know.
Illustrations
1. A, in support of a just claim which B has against Z for one thousand rupees,
falsely swears on a trial that he heard Z admit the justice of B’ claim. A has
given false evidence.

Whoever causes any circumstance to exist or makes any false entry in any book or record, or electronic record, or
makes any document or electronic record containing a false statement, intending that such circumstance, false entry
or false statement may appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding, or in a proceeding taken by law before a public
servant as such, or before an arbitrator, and that such circumstance, false entry or false statement, so appearing in
evidence, may cause any person who in such proceeding is to form an opinion upon the evidence, to entertain an
erroneous opinion touching any point material to the result of such proceeding is said “to fabricate false evidence”.
Illustrations
1. A puts jewels into a box belonging to Z, with the intention that they may be found in that box, and that
this circumstance may cause Z to be convicted of theft. A has fabricated false evidence.

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.
Explanations
1. A trial before a Court-martial is a judicial proceeding.
2. An investigation directed by law preliminary to a proceeding
before a Court of Justice, is a stage of a judicial proceeding,
though that investigation may not take place before a Court
of Justice.

Illustrations
1. A, in an enquiry before a Magistrate for the purpose of
ascertaining whether Z ought to be committed for trial, makes
on oath a statement which he knows to be false. As this enquiry
is a stage of a judicial proceeding, A as given false evidence.

i) A false statement, made by a person, who is;

(ii) Bound by an oath; or

(iii) By an express provision of law; or

ADVERTISEMENTS:

(iv) A declaration which a person is bound by law to make on any

subject; and

(v) Which statement or declaration is false and which he either

knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true.

The three essential pre-requisites are:

(i) A legal obligation to state the truth;

ADVERTISEMENTS:

(ii) The making of a false statement or declaration; and

(iii) Being in its falsity.

Distinction between ‘giving false evidence’ (Section 191) and
‘Forgery’ (Section 463) are as follows:

1. Giving false evidence, fabricating false evidence etc., are the

offences against ‘Public Justice’ while forgery, counterfeit etc., are
the offences related to Documents and to Property Marks.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

2. In giving false evidence, the wrong-doer of giving false

evidence makes the offence after an oath before the Court,
whereas, in forgery, there is no necessity to take oath before
committing the offence of forgery.

3. Giving false evidence, fabricating false evidence etc., are

merely connected with the judicial proceedings. But the offences
of forgery, counterfeit etc., are mainly connected with public life.

4. Giving false evidence, fabricating false evidence etc. may

relate to any kind of evidence ie., document, statement etc.,
where as forgery mainly relates with the documents.

5. The offence of giving false evidence is done openly, that too

before the court whereas the offence of forgery is generally done
secretly.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

6. Giving false evidence expresses general intention, but forgery

expresses particular intention.

7. Giving false statement need not be of any material point, but,

forgery.

8. There should be a proceeding being conducted in the case of

false evidence. But, such a proceeding need not be in existence
in the case of forgery.
9. The object of the wrong-doer is to win the case by giving false
evidence, but the object of the wrong-doer is to get the property
illegally.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

10. In the offence of giving false evidence, a person who is legally

bound by an oath to state the truth commits the crime but in the
offence of forgery there is no oath taking.

Forged Document (S. 470): According to Section 470, IPC, and “a

false document or electronic record made wholly or in part by
forgery is designated as ‘a forged document or electronic record”.

Section 73 of Indian Penal Code. "Solitary Confinement" Whenever any person is convicted of
an offence for which under this Code the Court has power to sentence him to rigorous imprisonment,
the Court may, by its sentence, order that the offender shall be kept in solitary confinement for any
portion or portions of the imprisonment to which he is sentenced, not exceeding three months in the
whole, according to the following scale, that is to say-a time not exceeding one month if the term of
imprisonment shall not exceed six months;

a time not exceeding two months if the term of imprisonment shall exceed six months and [shall not
exceed one] year;

a time not exceeding three months if the term of imprisonment shall exceed one year.

Section 74 of Indian Penal Code. "Limit of Solitary Confinement"

In executing a sentence of solitary confinement, such confinement shall in no case exceed fourteen
days at a time, with intervals between the periods of solitary confinement of not less duration than
such periods; and when the imprisonment awarded shall exceed three months, the solitary
confinement shall not exceed seven days in any one month of the whole imprisonment awarded, with
intervals between the periods of solitary confinement of not less duration than such periods.

Other Indian cases referring solitary confinement ➢ Devender Pal Singh Bhullar vs state of Delhi ➢
Rajendra Prasad Vs State of Uttar Pradesh ➢ Unni Krishnan J.P and others Vs State of Andhra Pradesh
➢ Mary Ram Vs Union of India and others ➢ A.K.Gopala Vs State of Madras ➢ P.Rathinam Vs Union of
India and others Constitutional arguments made against solitary confinement 1. It violates the basic
concept of common natural human dignity 2. It denies the basic human rights of the people 3. It causes
many significant mental illness and physical pain and suffering 4. It is unnecessary in many of the cases
Arguments made in favour of solitary confinement 1. It is necessary to prevent some rare cases of
suicides 2. It is an additional measure followed for the protection of an inmate from other inmates as it
includes the social isolation in the prison. 3. In case of violations against the prison regulations, it can be
given to some extent of punishments.
Theories of Punishment

Administration of Justice is the primary functions of the State, is generally divided into administration of Civil Justice and Administration of

Criminal Justice. The main purpose of Administration of criminal Justice is to punish the wrongdoer. It is the State which punishes the

Criminals. From the ancient times, a number of theories have been given concerning the purpose of punishment.

1) Punishment Meaning :

Punishment is a process by which the state inflicts some pain to the persons or property of person who is found guilty of Crime.

2) Object

The Object of Punishment is to protect society from mischievous and undesirable elements by deterring potential offenders, by preventing

the actual offenders from committing further offenses and by reforming and turning them into law abiding citizens.

3) Theories of Punishments :

Theories of Punishment are as follows

i) Deterrent Theory

'To deter' means, " to abstain from action/ doing ". Deterrent means, "infliction of severe punishments with punishments with a view to

prevent the offender from committing the crime again."

According to this theory, the object of punishment is not to only prevent the wrongdoer from doing a wrong a second time, but also to

make him an example to others who have criminal tendencies. Salmond considers deterrent aspects of criminal justice to be the most

important for control of crime.

A Judge once said : " I don't punish you for stealing the sheep but so that sheep may not be stolen." The aim of punishment is not

revenge but terror.

According to Manu "penalty keeps the people under control, penalty protects them, penalty remains awake when people are asleep, so

the wise have regarded punishment is a source of righteousness"

According to Paton " The deterrent theory emphasis the necessity of protecting society, by so treating the prisoners that others will be

deterred from breaking law.

The deterrent theory was the basis of punishment in England in the Medieval Period. Sever and Inhuman punishments were order of the

day and inflicted even for minor offenses like pick pocketing and stealing etc. The culprits were subjected to the sever punishment of death by
stonning and whipping.

In India during the Mughal period, the penalty of a death sentence or mutilation of the limbs was imposed even for the petty offenses

of forgery and stealing etc. Even today in moat of the Muslim countries , Such as Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the deterrent theory is

the basis of Penal Jurisprudence.

Criticism :

There is a lot of criticism of the deterrent theory of punishment in modern times. It has been criticized on the grounds that it has

proved ineffective in checking crimes and also that excessive harshness of punishment tends to defeat its own purpose by arousing the

sympathy of the public towards those who are given cruel and inhuman punishment. Hardened criminals are not afraid of punishment.

Punishment losses its horror once the criminal is punished.

ii) Retributive Theory

'Retributive' means , punitive or payback or make a return to." In Primitive society punishment was mainly retributive. The person

wronged was allowed to have revenge against the wrongdoer. The Principle of 'an eye for an eye', 'a tooth for a tooth ', a nail for nail, limb for

limb was the basis of criminal administration.

According to Justice Holmes 'It is commonly known that the early forms of legal procedure were grounded in vengeance.'

According to Sir John Salmond the retributive purpose of punishment consist in avenging the wrong done by the criminal to society.

The idea behind this theory is to make the offender realize the suffering / pain. The advocates of this theory plead that the criminal

deserve to suffer. The suffering imposed by the State in its corporate capacity is considered the political counterpart of individual revenge. It

is urged that unless the criminal receives the punishment he deserves, one or both of the following effects will result, namely, the victim will

seek individual revenge, which may mean lynching (killing or punishing violently ), or the victim will refuse to make a complaint or offer

testimony and State will therefore be handicapped in dealing with criminals . The modern criminology discards retribution in the sense of

vengeance, but in the sense of reprobation, it must always be an essential element in any form of punishment.

Criticism

Critics of retributive theory points out that punishment per se is not a remedy for the mischief committed by the offender. It merely
aggravates the mischief. Punishment in itself evil and can be justified only on the ground that it yields better result. Revenge is wild justice.

Retribution is only a subsidiary purpose served by punishment.

iii) Preventive theory

Preventive theory is also known as 'theory of disablement.' According to this theory, punishment is based on the proposition, "not to

avenge crime but to prevent it" The aim of this theory is to disable the criminal. Offenders are disabled from repeating the crime by awarding

punishments, such as death, exile or forfeiture of an office. By putting the criminal in jail, he is prevented from committing another crime.

The supporters of this theory recognize imprisonment as the best mode of punishment because it serves as an effective deterrent as

also a useful preventive measure. Bentham supported the preventive theory because of its humanizing influence on criminal law.

According to Justice Holmes " There can be no case in which the law-maker makes certain conduct criminal without his thereby showing

a wish and purpose to prevent that conduct. Prevention would accordingly seem to be the chief and only universal purpose of punishment.

The law threaten certain pains if you do certain things, intending thereby to give you a new motive for not doing them. If you persist in doing

them, it has to inflict the pains in order that its threats may continue to be believed."

According to Paton : " The Preventive theory concentrates on the prisoner and seeks to prevent him from offending again in the future.

The death penalty and exile serve the same purpose.

Criticism

Critics points out that Preventative Punishment has the undesirable effect of hardening first offenders, or juvenile offenders, when

imprisonment is the punishment, by putting them in the association of Harden Criminals.

iv) Reformative Theory

According to Reformative theory, the object is of punishment is the reformation of criminals. This theory seeks to bring about a change in

the attitude of offender so as to rehabilitate him as a law abiding member of society. Even if an offender commits a crime under certain

circumstances, he does not cease to be a human being. The circumstances under which he committed the crime may not occur again. Crime

is a mental disease, caused by different anti-social elements. Therefore the mental cure of criminals rather than awarding punishment will

serve the purpose. If the criminals are educated and trained, they will be competent to behave well in the society.
 The object of the punishment should be reform the offender. The criminal must be educated and taught some art or craft or industry

during his term of imprisonment, so that they may be able to lead a good life and become a responsible and respectable citizen after release

from jail. While awarding punishment judge should study the character and age of the offender, his early breeding, family background, his

education and environment, the circumstances under which he or she committed the crime, the motive which prompted him or her indulge in

criminal activities, etc. The object of doing so is to acquaint the judge with the circumstances under which the offence was committed so that

he could award punishment that could be serve the ends of justice.

Criticism :

Critics of this theory state that if Criminals are sent to prison to be transformed into good citizens, a prison will no longer be a

'prison' but a dwelling house.

This theory has been proved to be successful in case of young offenders.

v) Expiatory Theory

Expiatory theory of Punishment is based on morals. According to this theory repentance or expiation by offender itself is a punishment. If

the offender expiates or repents, he must be forgive. Expiatory theory of punishment was prevalent in ancient Indian criminal law. Expiations

were performed by way of uttering mantras, fasting or even burning oneself to death.

vi) Theory of Compensation

According to Theory of Compensation the object of punishment must not be merely to prevent further crimes but also to compensate

the victim of the Crime.

Criticism :

Critics points out that it tends to oversimplify the motive to crime.