All NotesCriminal LawBharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) · General Principles of Criminal Liability

False Evidence Chapter XIV BNS

False Evidence and Offences Against Public Justice under BNS: Chapter XIV Sections 227 to 269 and Landmark Cases

Justice depends on truthful evidence. Every court that pronounces judgment, every police officer that investigates a case, every tribunal that decides a dispute depends on the reliable testimony of witnesses and the authentic character of documents produced. When witnesses lie on oath, when documents are fabricated, when evidence is destroyed to prevent its production, when false charges are made to injure others, when offenders are harboured, when property is fraudulently transferred to defeat creditors, the entire machinery of justice is corrupted. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, protects the integrity of the justice system through Chapter XIV, forty-three provisions across Sections 227 to 269. This is one of the longest and most detailed chapters in the code. This module walks through the chapter thematically, grouping the provisions into false evidence, fabricated evidence and documents, disappearance of evidence, false charges, harbouring offenders, fraudulent property transfers, offences by public servants in judicial proceedings, and prison-related offences, with the leading Indian cases.

1. Introduction

Public justice and the integrity of evidence

The Indian criminal justice system is an adversarial system that depends on the testimony of witnesses and the authenticity of documents. Where witnesses lie or documents are fabricated, guilty persons may escape conviction and innocent persons may be wrongly convicted. Chapter XIV addresses the criminal law's response to these threats to the integrity of the justice system.

Chapter XIV overviewed

Chapter XIV is one of the longest chapters in the BNS. Its forty-three provisions address the many ways in which the justice system may be corrupted:

  • Perjury and fabrication of evidence.
  • Destruction and disappearance of evidence.
  • False information given to authorities.
  • False charges made to injure others.
  • Fraud on judicial process (personation, fraudulent property claims).
  • Harbouring of offenders.
  • Offences by public servants in judicial proceedings.
  • Resistance to lawful apprehension and escape.
  • Court proceedings, insults to judges, and bail violations.

The forty-three provisions grouped

Sections

Theme

227-231

False evidence and perjury

232

Threatening to give false evidence

233-237

Using false evidence and certificates

238-241

Disappearance and destruction of evidence

242-247

Fraud on judicial process

248

False charge with intent to injure

249-254

Harbouring offenders

255-261

Public servants in judicial proceedings

262-265

Resistance to apprehension and escape

266-269

Court insults and bail violations

2. False Evidence (Perjury)

Section 227: Giving false evidence

Section 227 BNS (formerly Section 191 IPC)

Whoever, being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth, or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, is said to give false evidence.

Section 227 defines giving false evidence (perjury). Three ingredients:

  • The person is legally bound by oath or by express law to state the truth.
  • The person makes a statement.
  • The statement is false, and the person knows or believes it to be false, or does not believe it to be true.

The section applies to witnesses in courts, tribunals, commissions of inquiry, and any other proceeding where the person is bound by oath. It also applies to declarations required by specific statutes (affidavits, statutory statements).

Section 228: Fabricating false evidence

Section 228 BNS (formerly Section 192 IPC)

Whoever causes any circumstance to exist or makes any false entry in any book or record or electronic record, or makes any document or electronic record containing a false statement, intending that such circumstance, false entry or false statement may appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding, or in a proceeding taken by law before a public servant as such, or before an arbitrator, and that such circumstance, false entry or false statement, so appearing in evidence, may cause any person who in such proceeding is to form an opinion upon the evidence, to entertain an erroneous opinion touching any point material to the result of such proceeding, is said 'to fabricate false evidence'.

Section 228 addresses the fabrication of evidence: creating false records, entries, or documents intended to be used in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings to influence the outcome. The BNS extends the provision to electronic records. Common examples: forged documents, manipulated computer records, planted physical evidence.

Section 229: Punishment for false evidence

Section 229 BNS (formerly Section 193 IPC)

Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine of ten thousand rupees, and whoever intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence in any other case, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine of five thousand rupees.

Section 229 provides the general punishment:

  • In judicial proceedings: up to seven years and fine of ten thousand rupees.
  • In any other case (non-judicial proceedings such as commissions of inquiry): up to three years and fine of five thousand rupees.

Section 230: Enhanced punishment for capital offence conviction

Section 230 BNS (formerly Section 194 IPC)

Whoever gives or fabricates false evidence, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, any person to be convicted of an offence which is capital by this Sanhita or by any other law for the time being in force shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if an innocent person be convicted and executed in consequence of such false evidence, the person who gives such false evidence shall be punished either with death or the punishment hereinbefore described.

Section 230 provides enhanced punishment where the false evidence was intended to procure conviction for a capital offence. The base punishment is life imprisonment or up to ten years and fine. If an innocent person is actually convicted and executed on the strength of the false evidence, the person who gave the false evidence may be punished with death. This is one of the few contexts in Indian criminal law where the death penalty is available for offences other than murder.

3. Section 231: Punishment for False Evidence to Procure Conviction

Section 231 BNS (formerly Section 195 IPC)

Whoever gives or fabricates false evidence intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, any person to be convicted of an offence which by the law for the time being in force in India is not capital, but punishable with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term of seven years or upwards, shall be punished as a person convicted of that offence would be liable to be punished.

Section 231 addresses false evidence intended to procure conviction for offences punishable with life imprisonment or seven years or more (non-capital serious offences). The punishment is that which the falsely accused person would have received if convicted. This creates a symmetry: the perjurer faces the same punishment as the offence they falsely attempted to procure conviction for.

4. Section 232 BNS: Threatening to Give False Evidence

Section 232 BNS (formerly Section 195A IPC)

Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause that person to give false evidence shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.

And whoever gives false evidence in consequence of such threat, and in consequence of such false evidence, if an innocent person is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment of seven years or more, the person threatening the witness shall be punished with the same punishment and sentence in the same manner and to the same extent as such innocent person would be so punished and sentenced.

Section 232 (inserted in 2006 as Section 195A IPC) addresses witness intimidation. Two levels:

  • Threatening a witness to give false evidence: up to seven years, or fine, or both.
  • If an innocent person is convicted and sentenced to seven years or more as a consequence: the same punishment as would have been imposed on the innocent person.

The provision responds to the specific evil of witness intimidation, which has been a serious concern in Indian criminal cases involving powerful defendants.

5. Sections 233 to 237: Using False Evidence and Certificates

  • Section 233 (Section 196 IPC): Using evidence known to be false or fabricated. Punishment: same as for giving false evidence.
  • Section 234 (Section 197 IPC): Issuing or signing a false certificate. Punishment: same as for giving false evidence.
  • Section 235 (Section 198 IPC): Using as true a certificate known to be false. Punishment: same as for giving false evidence.
  • Section 236 (Section 199 IPC): False statement made in declaration receivable as evidence. Punishment: same as for giving false evidence.
  • Section 237 (Section 200 IPC): Using as true such declaration knowing it to be false. Punishment: same as for giving false evidence.

These provisions extend the perjury framework to related conduct: using false evidence created by others, false certificates, and false declarations.

6. Sections 238 to 241: Causing Disappearance or Destruction of Evidence

Section 238: Causing disappearance of evidence

Section 238 BNS (formerly Section 201 IPC)

Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false:

Two-tier punishment: (a) if capital offence: up to 7 years and fine; (b) if punishable with life or 10 years: up to 3 years and fine; (c) if punishable with less than 10 years: up to one-fourth of the term for that offence, or fine, or both.

Section 238 is one of the most commonly invoked provisions in the chapter. It punishes the destruction, concealment, or disappearance of evidence to screen an offender. Common examples: disposing of murder weapons, cleaning crime scenes, false information given to police to divert investigation, false alibis. Punishment scales with the seriousness of the underlying offence.

Section 239: Omission to give information of offence

Section 239 (formerly Section 202 IPC) punishes intentional omission to give information regarding an offence when legally bound to do so. Punishment: up to six months, or fine, or both.

Section 240: Giving false information of offence

Section 240 (formerly Section 203 IPC) punishes giving false information regarding an offence known or believed to have been committed. Punishment: up to two years, or fine, or both.

Section 241: Destruction of document to prevent production

Section 241 (formerly Section 204 IPC) punishes destruction of a document or electronic record with the intention of preventing its production as evidence in a court, judicial proceeding, or proceeding before a public servant. Punishment: up to two years, or fine, or both.

7. Sections 242 to 247: Fraud on Judicial Process

Section

Offence

Punishment

Section 242

False personation for purpose of act or proceeding in a court

Up to 3 years and fine

Section 243

Fraudulent removal or concealment of property to prevent seizure as forfeited or in execution of decree

Up to 2 years and fine

Section 244

Fraudulent claim to property to prevent its seizure

Up to 2 years and fine

Section 245

Fraudulently suffering decree for sum not due

Up to 2 years and fine

Section 246

Dishonestly making false claim in court

Up to 2 years and fine

Section 247

Fraudulently obtaining decree for sum not due

Up to 2 years and fine

Sections 242 to 247 address various forms of fraud on the judicial process. These provisions target parties who use the court's machinery for fraudulent purposes: false claims, fraudulent transfers to defeat creditors, false personation, and similar conduct.

8. Section 248 BNS: False Charge Made with Intent to Injure

Section 248 BNS (formerly Section 211 IPC)

Whoever, with intent to cause injury to any person, institutes or causes to be instituted any criminal proceeding against that person, or falsely charges any person with having committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge against that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; and if such criminal proceeding be instituted on a false charge of an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for seven years or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 248 punishes false charges made with intent to injure. Two-tier punishment:

  • Ordinary false charge: up to two years, or fine, or both.
  • False charge for offence punishable with death, life imprisonment, or seven years or more: up to seven years and fine.

The provision addresses the specific evil of malicious criminal complaints intended to harass or injure the accused person. It is commonly invoked in cases of false FIRs filed in property disputes, matrimonial cases, and business rivalries.

9. Sections 249 to 254: Harbouring Offenders

Section

Offence

Punishment

Section 249

Harbouring offender generally

Punishment scales with underlying offence severity

Section 250

Taking gift, etc., to screen offender from punishment

Same as underlying offence

Section 251

Offering gift or restoration of property in consideration of screening

Same as underlying offence

Section 252

Taking gift to help recovering stolen property

Up to 2 years or fine

Section 253

Harbouring offender who has escaped from custody

Up to 7 years and fine

Section 254

Penalty for harbouring robbers or dacoits

Up to 7 years and fine

Sections 249 to 254 address the harbouring and screening of offenders. The provisions apply to:

  • Persons who provide shelter, food, transportation, or other assistance to offenders to help them avoid arrest.
  • Persons who accept payment to screen offenders.
  • Persons who offer payment to induce screening.
  • Persons who specifically harbour escaped prisoners, robbers, or dacoits.

10. Sections 255 to 261: Public Servants in Judicial Proceedings

  • Section 255 (Section 217 IPC): Public servant disobeying direction of law with intent to save person from punishment.
  • Section 256 (Section 218 IPC): Public servant framing incorrect record with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture.
  • Section 257 (Section 219 IPC): Public servant in judicial proceeding corruptly making report contrary to law.
  • Section 258 (Section 220 IPC): Commitment for trial or confinement by person having authority who knows he is acting contrary to law.
  • Section 259 (Section 221 IPC): Intentional omission to apprehend by public servant bound to apprehend.
  • Section 260 (Section 222 IPC): Intentional omission to apprehend by public servant bound to apprehend person under sentence.
  • Section 261 (Section 223 IPC): Escape from confinement negligently suffered by public servant.

These provisions target specific corruption or dereliction of duty by public servants involved in the criminal justice system. Punishments generally range from three to seven years. The provisions supplement the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Chapter XII BNS provisions on public servant offences.

11. Sections 262 to 265: Resistance to Apprehension and Escape

Section 262 BNS (formerly Section 224 IPC)

Whoever intentionally offers any resistance or illegal obstruction to the lawful apprehension of himself for any offence with which he is charged or of which he has been convicted, or escapes or attempts to escape from any custody in which he is lawfully detained for any such offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 262 punishes resistance to one's own lawful apprehension and escape from lawful custody. Punishment: up to two years, or fine, or both.

  • Section 263 (Section 225 IPC): Resistance or obstruction to the lawful apprehension of another person.
  • Section 264 (Section 225A IPC): Omission to apprehend or sufferance of escape by public servant.
  • Section 265 (Section 227 IPC): Violation of condition of remission of punishment.

12. Sections 266 to 269: Court Proceedings and Bail

Section 267: Intentional insult to public servant sitting in judicial proceeding

Section 267 BNS (formerly Section 228 IPC)

Whoever intentionally offers any insult, or causes any interruption to any public servant, while such public servant is sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.

Section 267 punishes intentional insult or interruption to public servants sitting in judicial proceedings. This includes judges, magistrates, and other officials presiding over judicial proceedings. Punishment: up to six months, or fine up to five thousand rupees, or both. The provision operates alongside the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which provides for civil and criminal contempt.

Section 267: Personation of juror or assessor

Section 267 (formerly Section 229 IPC) punishes personation of a juror, assessor, or member of a panchayat. Punishment: up to two years, or fine, or both.

Section 268: Threatening to prevent complaint against public servant

Section 268 (formerly Section 229A IPC) punishes threats or inducements aimed at preventing a person from lodging a complaint against a public servant.

Section 269: Failure to appear on bail bond (new BNS provision)

Section 269 BNS (a new BNS provision)

Whoever, having been charged with an offence and released on bail or on bond without sureties, fails without sufficient cause (the burden of proving which shall lie upon him), to appear in Court in accordance with the terms of the bail or bond, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both, or with community service.

Section 269 is a new BNS provision addressing bail jumping. Where a person released on bail fails to appear in court as required, punishment: up to one year, or fine, or both, or community service. The burden of proving sufficient cause for non-appearance lies on the accused. The provision responds to the growing concern about accused persons absconding after being granted bail.

13. Landmark Cases and Consolidated Judgments

📖 Chandrapal Singh v. Maharaj Singh, (1982) 1 SCC 466

The Supreme Court considered the framework for prosecutions under Section 193 IPC (now Section 229 BNS). The Court held that not every false statement warrants perjury prosecution; the false statement must be material to the proceedings and made with clear knowledge or belief of falsity. Rule: materiality and clear mens rea required.

📖 R. Balakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala, (2000) 7 SCC 129

The Supreme Court considered the ingredients of perjury and the procedural framework under Section 340 CrPC for such prosecutions. The Court emphasised the need for careful scrutiny before initiating perjury proceedings. Rule: procedural safeguards for perjury prosecutions.

📖 State of Karnataka v. Muniswamy, (1977) 2 SCC 699

The Supreme Court considered the application of Section 201 IPC (now Section 238 BNS) causing disappearance of evidence. The Court held that the accused's knowledge or reason to believe that an offence was committed, plus the intention to screen the offender, must be established. Rule: dual mens rea for Section 238.

📖 Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1952 SC 354

A classical case on Section 201 IPC. The Supreme Court held that Section 201 IPC does not apply to the offender himself for concealing his own offence; it applies to third parties who screen the offender. Rule: Section 201 IPC applies only to third parties.

📖 Kishori Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2007) SC

The Supreme Court considered the application of Section 211 IPC (now Section 248 BNS) false charge. The Court held that the ingredients include: (i) intent to injure; (ii) false charge or institution of proceedings; (iii) knowledge that there was no just or lawful ground. Rule: clear mens rea and knowledge required.

📖 State of Uttar Pradesh v. Deoman Upadhyaya, AIR 1960 SC 1125

The Supreme Court considered the framework for prosecutions under Section 212 IPC (now Section 249 BNS) harbouring offenders. The Court held that knowledge or reason to believe that the person harboured was an offender must be established. Rule: mens rea for harbouring.

📖 State of Andhra Pradesh v. K. Rama Rao, (2002) SC

The Supreme Court considered a case of witness intimidation. The Court applied Section 195A IPC (now Section 232 BNS) and elaborated the ingredients. Rule: witness intimidation strictly enforced.

📖 K. Karuppanan v. State, (1955) SC

The Supreme Court considered a case of fabricated evidence under Section 192 IPC (now Section 228 BNS). The Court held that the fabrication must be with the intention that the evidence be used in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. Rule: specific intent for fabrication.

📖 Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 4 SCC 158

The Best Bakery case. The Supreme Court considered witness intimidation and its impact on justice. The Court's response led to the strengthening of witness protection frameworks. Rule: judicial response to witness intimidation.

📖 State of Karnataka v. Muniswamy, (1977) 2 SCC 699

Section 201 application in murder investigations. The court held that even helping with cleaning after a murder was sufficient. Rule: broad interpretation of causing disappearance.

Consolidated Landmark Judgments

  • Chandrapal Singh v. Maharaj Singh, (1982) 1 SCC 466. Materiality for perjury prosecutions.
  • R. Balakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala, (2000) 7 SCC 129. Section 340 CrPC procedural framework.
  • State of Karnataka v. Muniswamy, (1977) 2 SCC 699. Dual mens rea for Section 201 IPC.
  • Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1952 SC 354. Section 201 applies only to third parties.
  • Kishori Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2007) SC. False charge ingredients.
  • State of UP v. Deoman Upadhyaya, AIR 1960 SC 1125. Harbouring mens rea.
  • State of AP v. K. Rama Rao, (2002) SC. Witness intimidation enforcement.
  • K. Karuppanan v. State, (1955) SC. Specific intent for fabrication.
  • Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 4 SCC 158. Best Bakery witness intimidation.
  • Mahila Vinod Kumari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 8 SCC 34. False affidavit as perjury.
  • Rajkumar v. State of Punjab, (2005) SC. Judicial perjury in matrimonial cases.
  • A.C. Bipin Panicker v. Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod, (2014) 9 SCC 129. Territorial jurisdiction in judicial process offences.
  • K. R. Purushothaman v. State of Kerala, (2005) 12 SCC 631. Framework for causing disappearance of evidence.
  • Rammi v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1999) 8 SCC 649. Application of Section 201 IPC in murder cases.
  • Sukhwant Singh v. State of Punjab, (1995) 3 SCC 367. Framework for perjury in criminal trials.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Chapter XIV of the BNS?

Chapter XIV of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, contains forty-three provisions on false evidence and offences against public justice (Sections 227 to 269). The chapter is one of the longest in the code, addressing perjury and fabrication of evidence, disappearance and destruction of evidence, false information given to authorities, false charges made to injure others, fraud on judicial process, harbouring of offenders, offences by public servants in judicial proceedings, resistance to lawful apprehension, and court proceedings including insults to judges and bail violations.

What is Section 227 BNS?

Section 227 BNS (formerly Section 191 IPC) defines giving false evidence (perjury). It applies to any person legally bound by oath or by express provision of law to state the truth, who makes a statement which is false and which he knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true. Section 229 BNS provides the punishment: up to seven years and fine of ten thousand rupees in judicial proceedings; up to three years and fine of five thousand rupees in other cases. Section 230 provides enhanced punishment (including death) where the false evidence led to conviction and execution of an innocent person.

What is Section 238 BNS?

Section 238 BNS (formerly Section 201 IPC) punishes causing disappearance of evidence with the intention of screening an offender from legal punishment. The offence is committed by third parties (not by the offender himself, per Palvinder Kaur v State of Punjab, AIR 1952 SC 354). Punishment scales with the underlying offence: up to seven years for capital offences; up to three years for offences punishable with life or ten years; up to one-fourth of the term for lesser offences. Common examples: disposing of murder weapons, cleaning crime scenes, false alibis, false information to divert investigation.

What is Section 248 BNS on false charges?

Section 248 BNS (formerly Section 211 IPC) punishes false charges made with intent to injure. Two-tier punishment: (i) ordinary false charge: up to two years, or fine, or both; (ii) false charge for offence punishable with death, life imprisonment, or seven years or more: up to seven years and fine. Three ingredients: (i) intent to injure; (ii) false charge or institution of proceedings; (iii) knowledge that there was no just or lawful ground. Commonly invoked in false FIRs in property disputes, matrimonial cases, and business rivalries.

What is Section 269 BNS?

Section 269 BNS is a new provision introduced by the BNS addressing bail jumping. Where a person, having been charged with an offence and released on bail or bond without sureties, fails without sufficient cause to appear in court in accordance with the terms of the bail or bond, punishment attaches: up to one year, or fine, or both, or community service. The burden of proving sufficient cause for non-appearance lies on the accused. The provision responds to concerns about accused persons absconding after being granted bail.

What is Section 232 BNS on witness intimidation?

Section 232 BNS (formerly Section 195A IPC, inserted in 2006) addresses witness intimidation. It punishes threatening any person with injury (to person, reputation, or property, or to persons in whom they are interested) with intent to cause them to give false evidence. Punishment: up to seven years, or fine, or both. Where the intimidation actually results in false evidence and an innocent person is convicted and sentenced to seven years or more, the intimidator receives the same punishment as would have been imposed on the innocent person. The provision responds to the specific problem of witness intimidation in criminal cases.

Related Topics on The Legal Bridge

For a fuller picture, read these companion notes on adjacent doctrines and provisions:

  • Offences By Public Servants under BNS: Chapter XII Sections 198 to 205 that operate alongside Sections 255 to 261 on judicial process public servants.
  • Contempt of Lawful Authority under BNS: Chapter XIII Sections 206 to 226 that operates alongside Chapter XIV.
  • Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: the framework for admissibility of evidence relevant to perjury prosecutions.
  • Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: the specific statute on corruption by public servants.

Quick Summary

Chapter XIV of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, contains forty-three provisions on false evidence and offences against public justice (Sections 227 to 269). Section 227 defines giving false evidence (perjury). Section 228 defines fabricating false evidence. Section 229 punishes both with up to seven years and fine. Section 230 provides for punishment where the false evidence was intended to procure conviction of a capital offence (life imprisonment or up to ten years). Section 238 punishes causing disappearance of evidence. Section 248 punishes false charges made with intent to injure. Sections 249 to 254 address harbouring of offenders. Sections 255 to 261 address offences by public servants in judicial proceedings. Section 262 punishes resistance to lawful apprehension. Section 267 punishes intentional insult to public servant sitting in judicial proceeding. Section 269 (new BNS provision) punishes failure to appear on bail bond.