Inconsistency in witness statements does not amount to perjury.

The Supreme Court bench led by CJI NV Ramana observed that a witness cannot be prosecuted for perjury under Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure based on mere inconsistencies in their statement. The Court observed that prosecution for perjury can be called for only if there is an aspect of intentional falsehood, and if so the case, it is still important for the Court to determine if an inquiry into the false statement is absolutely necessary for the interest of justice. The observation emanates from the Karnataka High Court’s order to prosecute a Returning Officer for providing false evidence.