He denied rape allegations in court. The High Court called it perjury. The Supreme Court disagreed.

He said 'I didn't do it' in an affidavit. The High Court said that's perjury. The Supreme Court just set him free.

James Kunjwal was accused of rape. He denied it in court. For that denial, a High Court ordered him prosecuted for lying under oath. The Supreme Court just stopped that prosecution cold — ruling that simply saying "I didn't do it" is not the same as fabricating evidence.

THE PLAY: A plain denial of an allegation — without fabrication, forgery, or deliberate falsehood on a material point — cannot sustain a perjury prosecution.

When a bail order turned into a perjury trap

In May 2021, a woman walked into a police station in Uttarakhand and filed an FIR — a written complaint that starts a police investigation. She accused James Kunjwal of rape under Section 376 IPC and intentional insult under Section 504 IPC. Her allegation: Kunjwal had established a sexual relationship with her on the false promise of marriage.

Kunjwal was arrested. He applied for bail. The trial court — the Additional District and Sessions Judge in Nainital — said no. Bail was rejected. The courtroom fell silent as the order was read out, the judge's words hanging in the stale air.

So Kunjwal went higher. On June 8, 2021, the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital granted him bail under First Bail Application No.1190/2021. He walked out.

The complainant didn't let it rest. She filed a bail cancellation application — Bail Cancellation Application No.24/2022 — asking the High Court to revoke the bail it had just granted. In that application, both sides filed affidavits — thin, crisp documents that smelled of fresh ink. The complainant swore to one version of events. Kunjwal swore to a completely different version. They contradicted each other on everything, including whether there had been harassment via WhatsApp.

The October 1 order that changed everything

On October 1, 2022, the High Court dismissed the bail cancellation application. The woman lost. But the court did something unexpected. It found that Kunjwal had filed a false affidavit — and directed the Registrar (Judicial) to file a perjury complaint against him under Section 193 IPC, the law punishing false evidence. The courtroom fell into a thick silence as the judge announced the perjury direction, the words settling like dust on the wooden benches.

The reasoning: Kunjwal had denied the complainant's allegations in his affidavit. The court believed those denials were lies. So it invoked its power under Section 195(1)(b) CrPC read with Section 340 CrPC — the procedural mechanism for courts to initiate prosecution for offences against public justice.

A criminal complaint was filed — Complaint No.2991/2022 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital. Kunjwal now faced not just the rape trial — but a separate criminal case for perjury. For saying "I didn't do it." The case file on his desk felt heavier now, a second accusation pressing down on the first.

The question the Supreme Court had to answer

Could a man be prosecuted for perjury simply because he denied allegations that a court later found credible? Or was there a line between "giving false evidence" and "defending yourself in court"?

Kunjwal appealed to the Supreme Court. The case — James Kunjwal v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr., Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.9783/2023 — landed before a three-judge bench: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice B.R. Gavai, and Justice K.V. Viswanathan. The bench listened, their faces impassive, the only sound the rustle of paper as they turned the pages of the case file — pages that carried the citation 2024 INSC 601.

The Supreme Court looked at what Kunjwal had actually done. His affidavit didn't invent new facts. It didn't produce forged documents. It didn't claim events that never happened. It simply denied the complainant's version. It said: that's not what happened.

The court called this a "denial simpliciter" — a plain, straightforward denial. No embellishment. No fabrication. Just "I didn't do it." The affidavit itself was a spare document, its paragraphs short and direct, carrying the weight of a man's defence in a few lines of typed text. The judge's voice, when reading the order on August 13, 2024, was measured and final.

Why the precedents mattered

The Supreme Court applied a line of settled judgments. In Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam (1971) 1 SCC 774, the court had held that perjury prosecution requires deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance — not mere denial. That case involved a dispute over a money decree, where the court warned against using perjury to intimidate litigants who simply denied claims against them.

In Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah (2005) 4 SCC 370, the court clarified that the power to prosecute for perjury must be exercised sparingly. That case arose from a family property dispute, where the Supreme Court held that courts should not become overzealous in punishing every contradictory statement made in affidavits.

In Dr. S.P. Kohli, Civil Surgeon, Ferozepur v. High Court of Haryana Through Registrar (1979) 1 SCC 212, the court warned against using perjury proceedings to silence parties who merely present their version of events. Dr. Kohli, a civil surgeon, had been prosecuted for statements made in a writ petition — and the Supreme Court quashed the proceedings, holding that a party's version of facts, even if incorrect, does not automatically constitute perjury.

In R.S. Sujatha v. State of Karnataka (2011) 5 SCC 689, the court reiterated that perjury must be proved by distinct evidence, not inferred from the mere fact that a court disbelieves a party's version. And in Himanshu Kumar & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (2022 SCC OnLine SC 884), the court held that where an affidavit merely denies the opposing party's allegations, no case for perjury is made out.

The court also drew on Narendra Kumar Srivastava v. State of Bihar & Ors. (2019) 3 SCC 318, Aarish Asgar Qureshi v. Fareed Ahmad Qureshi (2019) 18 SCC 172, and Bhima Razu Prasad v. State Rep. by Deputy Supdt. of Police, CBI/SPE/ACU-II (2021) 19 SCC 25 — each reinforcing the principle that perjury prosecution is an exceptional remedy, not a routine tool.

The court distilled five conditions that must be met before a court directs perjury prosecution:

First, there must be prima facie sufficient and reasonable ground. Second, prosecution must be expedient in the interests of justice. Third, there must be deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance — not a trivial or collateral point. Fourth, there must be a reasonable foundation with distinct evidence, not mere suspicion. Fifth, the circumstances must be exceptional — such as perjury committed to obtain beneficial court orders.

Kunjwal's affidavit failed every condition. He hadn't tried to obtain a beneficial order through lies. He had simply responded to an accusation. His denial was his defence. The court found no mala fide intention — no deliberate attempt to deceive. The bench's expression remained neutral as they delivered this finding, their words measured and final.

What the Supreme Court actually said

The bench quashed the High Court's direction and all proceedings arising from it. The perjury complaint was dead. The order was crisp — just a few paragraphs — but its effect was absolute: Complaint No.2991/2022 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital, was wiped away.

But the court was careful. It made one thing clear: this decision had no bearing on the criminal case pending against Kunjwal. The rape trial would proceed on its own merits. Kunjwal would still have to defend himself against the original allegations under Sections 376 and 504 IPC.

What the Supreme Court stopped was the idea that a defendant's denial — standing alone — could be treated as a separate crime.

What this means for every court in India

For lawyers and litigants, the message is straightforward. A court cannot use perjury proceedings to punish a party for simply denying allegations. The denial must be deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance, backed by distinct evidence, in exceptional circumstances. A he-said-she-said affidavit battle does not qualify.

The Supreme Court ended where it began: with a man who said "I didn't do it," and a court that tried to punish him for saying it. The file on the perjury case is now closed, but the rape trial — that remains open, waiting for its own day in court.