3 Answers
Dear Client, this is nuanced legal issues. The short answer is while yes, in theory a witness who turns hostile and gives evidence contradictory to a previous Section 164 statement can be exposed to a perjury claim, but in practice courts are very cautious about prosecuting rape victims for this.
A statement recorded by a Magistrate under Section 164 BNSS is a formal judicial record. If the victim subsequently states on oath before the trial court that the earlier statement was false, she has potentially given contradictory sworn statements, one of which must be false. Under Section 227 of BNS, giving false evidence in a judicial proceeding is punishable with imprisonment up to seven years.
In principle, either the 164 statement or the court testimony could be the false one, and perjury could technically arise from either.
However, courts across India have consistently applied great restraint in prosecuting rape victims who turn hostile, because the reality is that witnesses turn hostile overwhelmingly due to threats, coercion, family pressure, settlement, or social stigma and not because the original complaint was false.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized this ground reality. Where there is no other evidence in the chargesheet, the prosecution faces serious difficulties in proceeding, but it does not automatically mean the victim is prosecuted for perjury. The prosecution would need to independently prove which statement was false and that it was made knowingly and deliberately. The absence of other evidence in the chargesheet does not itself establish that the original complaint was fabricated.
If you are the accused in such a case and are considering whether the victim can be prosecuted, be aware that courts treat such applications with extreme caution and rarely entertain them when they appear designed to further victimize the complainant.
I hope this helps, and if you have any further issues, do not hesitate to contact us.
Dear Client,
A rape victim who turns hostile in court after giving a specific, sworn statement can, in some cases, be prosecuted for perjury or giving false evidence if the court concludes that she knowingly made a false statement under oath and later changed her version without any reasonable explanation. This is not automatic, but courts have in rare situations proceeded against a complainant who first names a person as the rapist and then clearly denies the rape or acts so as to vitiate the trial, and have noted that false statements by victims can attract perjury while still protecting genuine survivors. However, whether or not formal perjury proceedings lie depends on prosecution’s discretion and evidence that the earlier statement was deliberately false, not just on the fact that she turned hostile or the chargesheet lacks other evidence. If the earlier statement was made under pressure, fear, or misunderstanding, or the hostility is due to trauma, intimidation, or reconciliation, courts generally do not treat it as perjury and may instead focus on the accused’s acquittal or discharge due to lack of evidence.
I hope this helps and if you have any further issues do not hesitate to contact us.
With the introduction of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the procedural framework of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been largely retained but renumbered and modernized with a strong emphasis on digitisation, forensic investigation, and victim-centric safeguards. Key corresponding provisions include Section 154 CrPC (FIR) now reflected in Section 173 BNSS, Section 161 (police examination of witnesses) in Section 180 BNSS, and Section 164 (confessions/statements before Magistrate) in Section 183 BNSS, all of which now recognize electronic recording. Arrest provisions under Section 41 CrPC are reorganized under Section 35 BNSS with a greater focus on necessity and proportionality, while notice of appearance under Section 41A is integrated within the same framework. Investigation-related provisions such as Section 165 CrPC (search) correspond to Section 185 BNSS, and filing of charge sheet under Section 173 CrPC aligns with Section 193 BNSS, incorporating digital and forensic evidence requirements. Trial-related provisions like supply of documents (Section 207 CrPC → Section 230 BNSS), bail (Section 437 → Section 480 BNSS), anticipatory bail (Section 438 → Section 482 BNSS), compounding of offences (Section 320 → Section 359 BNSS), plea bargaining (Sections 265A–L → Sections 290–301 BNSS), and inherent powers of the High Court (Section 482 CrPC → Section 528 BNSS) continue with structural similarity but procedural refinement. Overall, BNSS reflects continuity with reform, aiming to streamline criminal procedure while adapting it to contemporary evidentiary and technological realities.