Baban Singh And Anr vs Jagdish Singh & Ors : Case Summary

Baban Singh And Anr vs Jagdish Singh & Ors

Author : Darshi Sanghavi


1967 AIR 68, 1966 SCR (3) 552


Hidayatullah, M


An evidence is rightly regarded as an essential element of law. It is generally known as a proof legally present at a trial, which is supposed to convince the judge on the basis of the material facts of a case.

However, quite often false evidence is fabricated, with the aim of diverting the verdict. The present case deals with one such incident.


One Baban Singh and his wife Dharichhan Kuer filed an appeal under S. 476-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order passed by the HC of Patna, directing the Registrar to file a complaint against them under S. 199 of the IPC for furnishing false affidavits.

In the present case, Jagdish Singh and Parmhans were appellants in F. A. 301 of 1952 in the High Court at Patna and Mst. Dharichhan Kuer was respondent No. 13. 

Alongside the appeal, a compromise was arrived at between Dharichhan Kuer on one hand and Jagdish Singh and Parmhans on the other. Resultantly, an affidavit was sworn in by Dharichhan Kuer and Jagdish Singh, based on the petition of compromise filed before the HC.

As per the terms of the compromise, Baban Singh’s brother identified Dharichhan Kuer before the Oath Commissioner and paid her Rs. 4000 in the Commissioner’s presence.

She passed a receipt and Baban Singh’s brother identified her thumb impression as well. On the same day, Baban Singh swore an affidavit (Ex. B) challenging the compromise or the receipt of Rs. 4,000 by his wife. Additionally, her wife Dharichhan Kuer also filed an affidavit (Ex. A), supporting her husband’s claim.

The High Court thus directed the Registrar to hold an enquiry. The examination of nine witnesses on behalf of Jagdish Singh and Parmhans was conducted, including that of the Oath Commissioner. On the other hand, Baban Singh and his wife gave evidences for themselves. According to the Registrar, the compromise was genuine and confirmed that Dharichhan Kuer had sworn the aforementioned affidavit and had received Rs. 4,000. Another term of the compromise stated that if Dharichhan Kuer withdrew herself from the compromise, the amount Rs. 4,000 would be refunded along with costs worth Rs. 500, which was fulfilled by Dharichhan.


Whether the offence committed by the aforementioned appellants falls under s. 191 and 192  of the Penal Code or under s. 199

Whether a complaint can be filed in the High Court for the prosecution of Baban Singh and Dharichhan Kuer for an offence under s. 193, Indian Penal Code, considering the fact that they had both deposed before the Registrar, and not the Court.

Whether S. 476 could be invoked due to the bar in S. 479A, subsection 6.

Whether proceedings can be carried out against Baban Singh and his wife under S. 479A.


In light of the declarations made by Baban Singh and Dharichhan Kuer in their affidavits, they can be held to be guilty of fabricating false evidence to be used in a judicial proceeding and have thus committed an offence under Ss 191/192 rather than S 199 of the IPC.

The appellants can be considered to be witnesses in the inquiry conducted in the HC, who fabricated false evidence and any prosecution against them shall be according to the procedure under S. 479A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

In consideration of the aforementioned facts, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. Resultantly, the order for prosecution is set aside and the complaint, if filed shall stand withdrawn.