CASE NAME	Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain, (1973) 2 SCC 406
CITATION	1973 SCC (Cri) 828, (1974) 1 SCR 78, 1973 Cri LJ 1176, AIR 1973 SC 2190
COURT	Supreme Court of India
BENCH	Hon’ble Justice Kuttyil Kurien Mathew and Justice I.D. Dua
PETITIONER	Santokh Singh
RESPONDENT	Izhar Hussain and Another
DECIDED ON	Decided on 25th April, 1973

INTRODUCTION 

The Supreme Court of India rendered a landmark decision in the matter of Santokh Singh vs. Izhar Hussain and Others on April 25, 1973. This decision addressed important questions about how Indian law evaluates witness testimony, interprets contradictions, and applies evidentiary standards. The case mainly concerns the implementation of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 and centers on the proper handling by courts of witness discrepancies in criminal cases. The degree to which disparities in witness evidence can undermine the prosecution’s case is one of the main legal questions this case raises. The ruling examines the concept of “material contradictions” as opposed to “minor inconsistencies,” clearly differentiating between mistakes that could inevitably arise in memories with time and those that could call into question the prosecution’s account of events. This distinction is essential for assessing the credibility of the evidence and deciding whether such inconsistencies call for a conviction or an acquittal.

In this decision, the Supreme Court examined the criminal justice system’s wider tenets, paying particular attention to the reasonable doubt threshold. It emphasized how crucial it is to determine if the discrepancies in the evidence are significant enough to cast doubt on the accused’s guilt. The Court’s analysis provided direction on maintaining the integrity of the legal system while ensuring that tiny errors in witness recollection do not prevent justice from being served. The decision also reaffirmed the presumption of innocence, a cornerstone of criminal law, and how judges should apply it while assessing inconsistent evidence. The Court’s ruling influenced how jurisprudence pertaining to witness testimony and evidence management in criminal proceedings is still being developed.

FACTS OF THE CASE

In this appeal by special leave, the appellant challenges the order of a learned single judge of the Allahabad High Court’s Lucknow Bench dated May 22, 1969, which allowed the revision of Izhar Hussain. After setting aside the orders of the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Barabanki, dated January 11, 1967, and the Sessions Judge, Barabanki, dated March 15, 1967, the appellant directs the Deputy Registrar of the High Court to file a complaint under S. 21 1, I.P.C. against the appellant for falsely accusing Izhar Hussain of crimes under sections 323 and 325 read with S. 149 and under S. 147, I.P.C. in the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Barabanki. It seems that on February 7, 1966, Kartar Singh, the son of Shri Lachman Singh, filed the first information report (Ext. Ka-9) at the police station in Kotwali Sub-District Nawabganj, District Barabanki. Following this, respondent Izhar Hussain and a few others were tried in the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Barabanki, for offenses under sections 147, 323/149, and 325/149 of the I.P.C. The prosecution’s case was supported by the examination of multiple witnesses.

ISSUES RAISED

• Whether the appellant is liable to be prosecuted under Sec. 211 of IPC?
• Whether the High Court erred in judgment?

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Argument on behalf of the appellant

• Based on the information in the record, this directive is completely unwarranted, if not outright illegal, as it is based on a faulty interpretation of the law and a misunderstanding of the evidence. 
• The submission said that the appellant had not filed an F.I.R., started any criminal proceedings, or falsely accused Izhar Hussain in violation of s. 21 1 I.P.C.Furthermore, the High Court could not have reached an opinion based on anything in the evidence that would have indicated it would be in the best interests of justice to file a complaint under s. 21 1 I.P.C. against the appellant. 
• The appellant’s attorney has made it clear that he does not wish to prosecute the appellant for any of the offenses listed in s. 479-A, Cr.P.C. Therefore, the bar arising from failure to comply with that section would have no bearing on the prosecution of other offenses. He has invoked Sections 195 (1) (b) and 476, I.P.C. Section 195, which, to the extent applicable, states Prosecution for Contempt (1) No Court shall of legitimate authority take cognizance of public servants, in support of his case.

Arguments on behalf of the respondent

• On behalf of the respondents, Shri Kohli has attempted to uphold the High Court’s ruling. He has argued that the words “or falsely charges” in s. 211, I.P.C. are not limited by the words “institutes or causes to be instituted any criminal proceeding,” as noted by Madholkar, J. in Haridas v. State of West Bengal. 
• The argument states that the Legislature has allowed for two different types of activities in this section: (i) the institution of proceedings and  (ii) laying out a fabrication.
• According to Mudholkar J., Shri Kohli stated, this section “is not limited to the institution of a complaint upon a false charge as such an interpretation would completely shut out criminal proceedings in which no charge of an offense is made.”
• The argument that the appellant made a false accusation against Izhar Hussain and could be charged under section 211 of the Indian Penal Code when he claimed in the witness box as P.W. 4 that he had seen Mohd. Zahir, Usman, Shahanshah, Puttan, and Izhar Hussain on the carpet and during the identification process in the jail are based on this observation, which the learned counsel has attempted to develop and build upon. 

JUDGMENT

The Court held that in the current instance, the appellant did not file any criminal charges against anyone or “falsely charge” anyone. Giving false testimony against an accused person during a criminal trial may properly be considered an offense under Section 193 of the IPC; however, the statement required to be the “charges” under Section 211 of the IPC should be made in the form of a complaint or a report of a cognizable offense to a qualified police officer with the goal of enforcing the criminal law. As a result, no offense under IPC S.211 may be “deemed to have been committed” in the given situation. 

The Court also observed that since the High Court was neither the court that heard the initial offenses nor the court that the trial court was subordinate to, it is unlikely that it had any authority to issue a complaint order. Rather than instructing the appellant’s prosecution, the High Court had the option to overturn the decisions made by the two lower courts and return the case to the trial court for a legally-mandated reexamination. 

CONCLUSION

A criminal proceeding against someone with the intent to harm them or to falsely accuse someone of committing an offense is the fundamental component of an offense under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code. This requires that the person instituting the proceeding or causing it to be instituted knows that there is no just or lawful basis for the proceeding or the charge.
False charges can be prepared even in cases where no criminal procedures are brought to fruition. False criminal proceedings can be initiated or caused to be instituted. 

It was impossible to comprehend how it could be advantageous in the interests of justice to direct the appellant’s prosecution, given the appellant’s admission that he did not notice Sher among the attackers. The court is not required to order prosecution for every inaccurate or false statement. When deciding whether a matter is expedient, the court must use its judicial discretion and consider all pertinent facts. The court grants prosecution in order to further the administration of justice rather than to appease personal retaliation desires. As viewed by s. 211 I.P.C., identification at test parades could in no way be construed as constituting a false accusation against the respondent. Such identification is only admissible in court as supporting documentation for the statement; it is not substantive evidence. 

In the Indian legal history, Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain and Others is a significant precedent. It highlights the need to give witness credibility a close examination and the judiciary’s responsibility to guarantee that a conviction is supported by solid, reliable evidence. The case is still used as a benchmark when it comes to issues with how testimony is assessed and how discrepancies are handled in criminal cases. The ruling emphasized that only notable discrepancies that are fundamental to the case should give rise to reasonable doubt regarding the accused’s guilt. By upholding this idea, the Court strengthened the delicate balance between guaranteeing a fair trial and averting miscarriages of justice brought about by inconsequential witness errors. The decision emphasized the significance of the presumption of innocence in criminal law and urged judges to carefully consider all available evidence before returning a guilty verdict.