Question: 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. What offence, if any has been committed by A? [RJS, 1991, WBJS, 1996] Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [A puts… Read More »

Question: 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. What offence, if any has been committed by A? [RJS, 1991, WBJS, 1996] Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [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. What offence, if…] Answer ...

Question: 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. What offence, if any has been committed by A? [RJS, 1991, WBJS, 1996]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [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. What offence, if…]

Answer

Section 192 of IPC talks about when a person is said to have indulged in Fabricating false evidence. It states,

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.

The present case has been borrowed from illustration a to Section 192, IPC. Here, when 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.

In Afzal v. State of Haryana [AIR 1996 SC 2326], the railway police were in search of one Rahim Khan for offences of fraud and forgery of the railway receipts, cheating and misappropriation. Since the said Rahim Khan was eluding the authorities, the investigating team took away two minor boys, one of whom was Rahim Khan’s son and kept them in wrongful confinement at different places.

The inspector of the railway police allegedly stated only if Rahim Khan surrendered, would the minor boys be released. A habeas corpus petition was filed in the Supreme Court under art 32 of the Constitution. The superintendent of police and the sub-inspector were asked to file counter-affidavits in the matter.

Both of them filed counter-affidavits denying the allegation that the minor children were in their custody. It also transpired that the superintendent of police, who was not available at Delhi on the relevant date, instructed his subordinate officer to forge his signature in the counter-affidavit.

The District Judge, Faridabad, was directed to ascertain the facts in respect of the illegal confinement of the two minor boys. The Director of CBI was entrusted with the task of verifying the signatures in the counter-affidavit, if necessary, with the assistance of handwriting experts.

On enquiry, it was found that the superintendent of police and the inspector had falsely stated in their counter-affidavit that the minor children were not under illegal confinement. It was also found that the signature of the superintendent of police was forged under his instructions.

The Supreme Court took very serious note of the conduct of the police officials. It observed that the tendency to file false affidavits or fabricated documents, or forgery of documents and placing them as part of the record of the court cannot be lightly brushed aside and they are matters of grave and serious concern.

The Supreme Court convicted both the superintendent of police and the sub-inspector under Sections 192 and 193, IPC. The Superintendent of Police was sentenced to one-year rigorous imprisonment and the sub-inspector, to six months rigorous imprisonment.


Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

  1. IPC Mains Questions Series Part I: Important Questions
  2. IPC Mains Questions Series Part II: Important Questions
  3. IPC Mains Questions Series Part III: Important Questions
  4. IPC Mains Questions Series Part IV: Important Questions
  5. IPC Mains Questions Series Part V: Important Questions
  6. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VI: Important Questions
  7. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VII: Important Questions
  8. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VIII: Important Questions
  9. IPC Mains Questions Series Part IX: Important Questions
  10. IPC Mains Questions Series Part X: Important Questions
Updated On 2021-07-21T10:07:02+05:30
Admin LB

Admin LB

Next Story