(1) The English law requires two witnesses to prove perjury, but Section 191 does not. (2) Under English law the false statement must be on oath or solemn affirmation before there can be any conviction for perjury, but in Section 191 oath is merely one of the forms by which a party may be bound to speak the truth.(3) In English law the false statement must be material to the case but Section 191 does not place any such condition. (4) In English law perjury must be before a competent Tribunal and have reference to a judicial proceeding but there is no such restriction in Section 191 which covers any statement made under oath or otherwise, in pursuance of a legal duty to make it whether in a judicial proceeding or otherwise.
Image Source: saylordotorg.github.io
A person is not bound to tell the truth to Police Officer and he cannot as such be held guilty of perjury for a false statement to such officer. A false declaration of verification in a pleading or written statement is an offence under this section.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Proof:
It is very unsafe to convict an accused of perjury simply because there is some oral evidence to show that the statement was false. If this principle is acted upon, no witness appearing in a Court of law will be safe, and it would sometimes be very difficult, if not impossible, to find any evidence in a judicial case because the witnesses would be afraid that if one or two witnesses come to court to depose against them they might be hauled up for perjury.
The evidence to prove perjury should be as strong, if not stronger, as in any other criminal case. The Court should have no reasonable doubt about the statement being perjured before it can convict an accused of perjury. Even if there are two contradictory statements, the accused should be convicted of perjury only when they are found to be altogether irreconcilable.