False Evidence and Offences Against Public Justice (Sections 191–229 IPC)

Sections 227 to 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) — re-enacting Sections 191 to 229A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — collect the offences that protect the integrity of judicial proceedings. The chapter is the longest in the BNS state-protection scheme. It punishes perjury, fabrication of evidence, fraudulent suit, screening of offenders, harbouring criminals, escape from custody, and contempt by interruption of judicial proceedings. Where the chapter on contempts of lawful authority protects the public servant himself, this chapter protects the search for truth on which judicial action depends.

The BNS amendments here are largely about quantifying fines and reorganising sections into clauses for clarity. Sections 229 and 230 BNS specify fines (up to ten thousand and fifty thousand rupees respectively); Section 239 BNS introduces a defined fine of five thousand rupees for omission to give information of an offence; Section 248 BNS raises the upper imprisonment for false charges from two/seven years to five/ten years and defines the upper fine at two lakh rupees; Sections 249 to 251 BNS reorganise the harbouring provisions into clauses (a), (b), (c) and replace "husband or wife" with "spouse".

Statutory anchor and scheme

The chapter clusters into seven groups:

1. Perjury and fabrication — Sections 227 to 233 BNS: giving false evidence, fabricating false evidence, punishments, threats to give false evidence, using known-false evidence.
2. False certificates and declarations — Sections 234 to 237 BNS: issuing false certificates, using false certificates, false declarations, using false declarations.
3. Screening offenders — Sections 238 to 244 BNS: causing disappearance of evidence, omission to inform, false information, destruction of records, false personation, fraudulent removal of property, fraudulent claim.
4. Fraudulent suit — Sections 245 to 247 BNS: fraudulently suffering decree, dishonestly making false claim, fraudulently obtaining decree.
5. False charge and harbouring — Sections 248 to 254 BNS: false charge of offence, harbouring offender, taking gift to screen, offering gift, taking gift to recover stolen property, harbouring escapee, harbouring robbers and dacoits.
6. Public-servant misconduct — Sections 255 to 260 BNS: disobedience to save from punishment, framing incorrect record, corrupt judicial report, wrongful confinement, intentional omission to apprehend.
7. Custody and apprehension — Sections 261 to 269 BNS: escape from custody, resistance to apprehension, omission to apprehend, violation of remission, insult to public servant in judicial proceeding, personation of assessor, failure to appear on bail.

Bar to cognizance — Section 215 BNSS

Section 215 BNSS (previously Section 195 CrPC) bars cognizance of offences under Sections 229 to 233, 236, 237, 242 to 248 and 267 BNS, when alleged to have been committed in or in relation to any proceeding in any Court, except on the written complaint of that Court (or a Court subordinate). S. Palani Velayutham v. District Collector Tirunelveli (2009) 10 SCC 664 reinforces the procedural rule.

Section 227 BNS — giving false evidence (perjury)

Three ingredients

1. The accused must be legally bound — by an oath, an express provision of law, or a duty to declare upon a subject.
2. He must make a false statement.
3. He must know or believe the statement to be false, or not believe it to be true.

Materiality is not required

The statement need not be material to the case. Ranjit Singh v. State of Pepsu AIR 1959 SC 843 holds that whoever binds himself on oath to state the truth is bound to state the truth — it is no defence that he was not bound to enter the witness box. The making of a designedly false statement is enough whether or not the statement bears materially on the matter under enquiry.

Knowledge or belief of falsity

The matter sworn to must be either false in fact, or, if true, the accused must not have known it to be so. Mohammod Hussein v. State of Maharashtra 1995 Cr LJ 2364 (Bom) holds that the making of a false statement, without knowledge as to its truth or falsity, is legally the giving of false evidence. A man cannot, however, be convicted of perjury for having acted rashly or for having failed to make reasonable enquiry — the accused must have either positively known or believed the statement to be false. The doctrinal anchor here is the regime of mistake-of-fact and good-faith defences in the BNS general part, which may negate the requisite knowledge in marginal cases.

Two contradictory statements

Where a person makes two contradictory statements, one of which must be false, perjury is not made out unless the falsity of one of them — as charged in the indictment — is positively proved. Kuriakose v. State of Kerala 1995 Cr LJ 2687 illustrates the practical caution: where it could not be shown which of the witness's two contradictory statements was true and which false, the perjury complaints were withdrawn. The Supreme Court has cautioned that a witness whose statement has been recorded under Section 183 BNSS (previously Section 164 CrPC) feels tied to that statement and must be approached with caution.

Expert opinions

Prem Sagar Manocha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2016) 4 SCC 571 holds that a scientific expert who amends his opinion on the witness stand cannot, without more, be presumed to have committed perjury. The Supreme Court warned against attributing motive to an expert who shifts position when the underlying facts change or when the Court demands a definite opinion.

Affidavits

An affidavit is evidence within Section 227 BNS. Baban Singh v. Jagdish Singh AIR 1967 SC 68 holds that a false affidavit sworn for use in a judicial proceeding falls under Sections 191 and 192 IPC (now Sections 227 and 228 BNS). However, Delhi Lotteries v. Rajesh Agarwal AIR 1998 Del 1332 cautions that an affidavit filed suo motu by a party — not under the Court's direction — cannot itself be evidence; the perjury machinery does not attach to it without more.

Section 228 BNS — fabricating false evidence

Section 228 BNS (previously Section 192 IPC) covers fabrication: causing any circumstance to exist, or making any false entry in any book or record, or making 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 and may cause any person who is to form an opinion upon the evidence to entertain an erroneous opinion touching any point material to the result of the proceeding.

Section 228 BNS differs from Section 227 BNS in three ways. First, it does not require the accused to be on oath. Second, it requires the false circumstance or entry to be material to the proceeding. Third, it requires intent that the fabricated material be used in evidence. The two sections often apply cumulatively — the same conduct may be both perjury and fabrication. Where the fabricator also conspires with another to plant the false document, the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 61 BNS attaches in addition.

Section 229 BNS — punishment for false evidence

Section 229 BNS (previously Section 193 IPC) prescribes the punishment ladder. Sub-section (1): false evidence in a judicial proceeding — imprisonment up to seven years, plus fine up to ten thousand rupees. Sub-section (2): false evidence in any other case — imprisonment up to three years, plus fine up to five thousand rupees. The BNS specifies the fines explicitly; the IPC left them at the court's discretion.

Sections 230 and 231 BNS — false evidence to procure conviction

Section 230 BNS (previously Section 194 IPC) punishes whoever gives or fabricates false evidence intending or knowing it likely that he will thereby cause any person to be convicted of an offence punishable with death. Where the innocent person is in fact convicted and executed, life imprisonment or imprisonment up to ten years, plus fine up to fifty thousand rupees. Section 231 BNS (previously Section 195 IPC) punishes the same conduct where the offence sought to be procured is punishable with life imprisonment or seven years' rigorous imprisonment.

Section 232 BNS — threatening to give false evidence

Section 232 BNS (previously Section 195A IPC) — inserted into the IPC by the 2005 amendment — punishes whoever threatens any person with injury to his person, reputation or property in order to induce him to give false evidence in a judicial proceeding. Where the false evidence is in fact given and an innocent person is convicted, the penalty matches the penalty for the principal offence so procured.

Section 238 BNS — causing disappearance of evidence

Section 238 BNS (previously Section 201 IPC) punishes 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, or gives any false information respecting the offence. The section is structured around the gravity of the principal offence: capital offence — imprisonment up to seven years; offences punishable with life imprisonment or ten years — three years; other offences — one fourth of the longest term provided for the principal offence.

Sections 239 and 240 BNS — omission and false information

Section 239 BNS (previously Section 202 IPC) punishes intentional omission to give information of an offence by a person bound to inform; the BNS specifies a fine of five thousand rupees, where the IPC did not. Section 240 BNS (previously Section 203 IPC) punishes giving false information respecting an offence committed.

Section 248 BNS — false charge of offence

Section 248 BNS (previously Section 211 IPC) is the leading provision on malicious prosecution within the criminal law. The BNS raises the upper imprisonment from two years to five (for the lesser limb) and from seven years to ten (for the aggravated limb), and defines the upper fine at two lakh rupees. The provision punishes whoever, with intent to cause injury to any person, institutes or causes to be instituted any criminal proceeding, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for the proceeding, or falsely charges any person with having committed an offence.

Sections 249 to 254 BNS — harbouring offenders and gifts to screen

Section 249 BNS (previously Section 212 IPC) punishes harbouring an offender — the person who, knowing or having reason to believe that another has committed an offence, harbours or conceals him with intent to screen him from legal punishment. The BNS reorganises the section into clauses (a), (b) and (c) and replaces "husband or wife" with "spouse". Sections 250 and 251 BNS (previously Sections 213 and 214 IPC) punish taking and offering gifts to screen offenders. Section 252 BNS (previously Section 215 IPC) punishes taking gifts to help recover stolen property without arresting the offender. Section 253 BNS (previously Section 216 IPC) punishes harbouring an offender who has escaped from custody. Section 254 BNS (previously Section 216A IPC) punishes harbouring robbers or dacoits, with the spouse exception. The doctrinal logic mirrors the harbouring-of-deserters provision in the armed forces chapter — the spouse-exception is a recognition that intra-marital harbouring sits at the edge of voluntariness. Where the harboured offender is a member of an unlawful assembly within the meaning of the public-tranquillity chapter, parallel liability under Section 190 BNS for vicarious offences may also attach.

Public-servant offences within the chapter

The chapter contains its own public-servant integrity offences. Section 255 BNS (previously Section 217 IPC) punishes a public servant who disobeys a direction of law to save a person from punishment or property from forfeiture. Section 256 BNS (previously Section 218 IPC) punishes the framing of an incorrect record or writing with intent to save from punishment. Section 257 BNS (previously Section 219 IPC) punishes a public servant in a judicial proceeding corruptly making a report contrary to law. Section 258 BNS (previously Section 220 IPC) punishes commitment for trial or confinement by a person knowing the action to be unlawful. Sections 259 and 260 BNS (previously Sections 221 and 222 IPC) punish intentional omission to apprehend; both are reorganised into clauses (a), (b), (c) by the BNS without altering the essence.

Sections 261 to 266 BNS — escape and obstruction

Section 261 BNS (previously Section 223 IPC) punishes escape from confinement or custody negligently suffered by a public servant. Section 262 BNS (previously Section 224 IPC) punishes resistance or obstruction by a person to his lawful apprehension. Section 263 BNS (previously Section 225 IPC) punishes resistance or obstruction to the apprehension of another, reorganised into clauses (a), (b), (c). Sections 264 and 265 BNS (previously Sections 225A and 225B IPC) cover residuary cases of omission and obstruction. Section 266 BNS (previously Section 227 IPC) punishes violation of conditions of remission.

Section 267 BNS — insult to public servant in judicial proceeding

Section 267 BNS (previously Section 228 IPC) punishes intentional insult or interruption to a public servant sitting in a judicial proceeding. The BNS raises the upper fine from one thousand to five thousand rupees. The provision must be read with Section 345 BNSS, which provides the procedural shortcut for in-court contempt: the Court may itself try and punish the offender summarily.

Section 268 BNS — personation of assessor

Section 268 BNS (previously Section 229 IPC) punishes whoever, intending to be impanelled as an assessor for any case, falsely personates another. The BNS replaces "juror or assessor" with "Personation of assessor" and excludes the obsolete word "juryman".

Section 269 BNS — failure to appear on bail

Section 269 BNS (previously Section 229A IPC, inserted in 2005) punishes a person released on bail or bond who fails to appear in court without sufficient cause. Imprisonment up to one year, or fine, or both. The provision is the criminal-law deterrent against bail-jumping, and operates alongside the standard attempt doctrine to capture inchoate flight.

The accused's privilege against self-incrimination

The accused on trial is not punishable for false evidence in his own defence. The Code's authors expressly observed that there is no punishment for false evidence given by a person on his own trial. The position dovetails with Article 20(3) of the Constitution and with Section 351 BNSS (previously Section 313 CrPC) — the accused cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself, and the false answers he gives in his statement under Section 351 BNSS do not attract perjury.

Selected case law summary

• Ranjit Singh v. State of Pepsu AIR 1959 SC 843 — being on oath imposes the duty to state truth.
• Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma (1995) 1 SCC 421 — false plea with oblique motive hampers justice.
• Mishrilal v. State of MP (2005) 10 SCC 701 — courts must take serious action against perjury.
• Baban Singh v. Jagdish Singh AIR 1967 SC 68 — false affidavit in judicial proceeding falls under Sections 227 and 228 BNS.
• Prem Sagar Manocha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2016) 4 SCC 571 — expert opinions and the deviation defence.
• S. Palani Velayutham v. District Collector Tirunelveli (2009) 10 SCC 664 — Section 215 BNSS bar on cognizance.
• State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Pankaj Chaudhary AIR 2018 SC 5412 — perjury sanction only where deliberate and expedient.

Procedural framework — Section 379 BNSS

The procedural pathway for perjury has its own statute. Section 379 BNSS (previously Section 340 CrPC) authorises a court, after preliminary enquiry, to make a complaint to the appropriate magistrate where it appears that an offence under Section 215 BNSS-listed provisions has been committed in or in relation to a proceeding before it. The complaint is the gateway; without it, cognizance is barred. The doctrine of abetment under Section 45 BNS attaches naturally where the perjury is procured at the instance of another.

Sentencing patterns and BNS upgrades

The chapter contains the BNS's heaviest fines outside the property and sexual-offence chapters. The defined upper fines — fifty thousand rupees under Section 230 BNS, two lakh rupees under Section 248 BNS, ten thousand rupees under Section 229 BNS, five thousand rupees under Sections 229(2) and 239 BNS — reflect the legislative judgment that the integrity of judicial proceedings warrants strong monetary deterrents. Section 230 BNS on procuring conviction in a capital case retains life imprisonment as the upper sanction. The general framework for the sentencing exercise is set out in the chapter on punishments — kinds, solitary confinement and fines.

Mens rea pattern across the chapter

The chapter operates on a graded mens rea spectrum:

1. Section 227 BNS — knowledge or belief of falsity, or absence of belief in truth.
2. Section 228 BNS — intent that the fabricated material be used in evidence.
3. Section 230 BNS — intent or knowledge of likelihood of conviction.
4. Section 232 BNS — intent to induce false evidence.
5. Section 238 BNS — knowledge of commission of offence and intent to screen.
6. Section 248 BNS — intent to cause injury and knowledge of absence of just ground.
7. Sections 249 to 254 BNS — knowledge or reason to believe in commission and intent to screen.
8. Section 255 BNS — knowing disobedience with intent to save from punishment.
9. Section 261 BNS — negligence (the only substantial negligence offence in the chapter).

The doctrinal architecture is precise: knowledge or intent at every stage of the truth-protection process, with negligence reserved for the limited custody-supervision context of Section 261 BNS.

Reading the chapter as a system

Sections 227 to 269 BNS form the truth-protection tier of the BNS. The chapter sits in close interaction with the chapter on offences by public servants and the chapter on contempts of lawful authority. The exam-aspirant should remember the two structural keys: most offences in the chapter must clear the Section 215 BNSS sanction-of-cognizance gate before substantive analysis begins; and the distinction between Section 227 BNS perjury (oath required) and Section 228 BNS fabrication (no oath required) is the most exam-tested boundary in the chapter.

Frequently asked questions

Is materiality required for perjury under Section 227 BNS?

No. The Supreme Court in Ranjit Singh v. State of Pepsu (1959) held that the making of a designedly false statement is enough whether or not the statement bears materially on the matter under enquiry. Once the witness binds himself on oath to state the truth, he is bound to state the truth — and any deliberate falsehood, material or not, attracts the section. Materiality is, however, required for the cognate offence of fabricating false evidence under Section 228 BNS.

Can a witness be prosecuted for two contradictory statements?

Only with care. The Supreme Court in Kuriakose v. State of Kerala (1995) cautioned that perjury is not made out merely because a witness made two contradictory statements, one of which must be false. The falsity of one — as charged in the indictment — must be positively proved. Where the prosecution cannot show which statement was true, the perjury complaint will be withdrawn. A witness whose Section 183 BNSS statement contradicts his trial deposition feels tied to the earlier statement, and the Court must approach his evidence with caution.

Does perjury require sanction of cognizance under Section 215 BNSS?

Yes, where the offence is alleged to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in any Court. Section 215 BNSS bars cognizance of offences under Sections 229 to 233, 236, 237, 242 to 248 and 267 BNS in such cases except on the written complaint of the Court itself or some Court to which it is subordinate. The procedural pathway is Section 379 BNSS — the Court conducts a preliminary enquiry and makes a complaint to the appropriate magistrate.

Is an affidavit filed in court evidence for the purposes of Section 227 BNS?

Generally yes. Baban Singh v. Jagdish Singh (1967) holds that a false affidavit sworn for use in a judicial proceeding falls under Sections 227 and 228 BNS. But Delhi Lotteries v. Rajesh Agarwal (1998 Del) cautions that an affidavit filed suo motu by a party — not at the Court's direction — may not itself be evidence within the section. The decisive test is whether the affidavit was submitted in the course of judicial proceedings and whether the Court was relying on it.

Is the accused on trial liable for perjury for denying the offence?

No. The Code's drafters expressly excluded the accused on trial from the scope of false-evidence offences. The accused cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself — Article 20(3) of the Constitution. Section 351 BNSS (previously Section 313 CrPC) expressly provides that the accused's statement is not on oath and the accused does not render himself liable to punishment by giving false answers to the Court.

What is the punishment for false charge of an offence under Section 248 BNS?

The BNS substantially upgrades the IPC punishment. Section 248 BNS punishes the lesser limb (false charge of any offence) with imprisonment up to five years (raised from two years), and the aggravated limb (where the false charge is of an offence punishable with death, life imprisonment, or seven years' rigorous imprisonment) with imprisonment up to ten years (raised from seven years). The fine is now defined at up to two lakh rupees. The legislative judgment reflects the recognition that vexatious criminal complaints are themselves a form of harm.