Giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of offence punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment
Section 231 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of offence punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment. 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 The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
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.
Illustration.
A gives false evidence before a Court, intending thereby to cause Z to be convicted of a dacoity. The punishment of dacoity is imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, with or without fine. A, therefore, is liable to imprisonment for life or imprisonment, with or without fine.
Section 231, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 195 Giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of offence punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment Text carried over almost unchanged 99%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 1
How this offence is classified
From the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which classifies every offence under the Sanhita. Cognizable means a police officer may arrest without warrant; bailable means bail is a matter of right rather than of the court's discretion.
| Offence | Punishment | Cognizable | Bailable | Triable by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of an offence punishable with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment for 7 years, or upwards. | The same as for the offence. | Non-cognizable. | Non-bailable. | Court of Session. |
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Jijimon K.M. vs State Of Kerala
Decided under Indian Penal Code 195, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a deponent in a judicial proceeding, particularly a police officer who is a party to the suit, is fully aware that disciplinary proceedings and punishment imposed in connection with the very incident that is subject matter of the suit are highly relevant to the case, and such deponent deliberately denies the existence of such punishment when specifically questioned during cross-examination, knowing such denial to be false, a prima facie case is made out for investigating alleged false evidence under Section 193 IPC. It is expedient in the interests of justice to initiate proceedings under Section 340 CrPC in such circumstances, as the false evidence goes to the credibility and integrity of the witness and the administration of justice itself.
On this section: Offences against public justice; cited as offences for which court can make complaint under Section 340 CrPC
-
Court on Its Own Motion vs Mulakh Raj
Decided under Indian Penal Code 195, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When conduct of a police officer during investigation prima-facie constitutes an offence under the Indian Penal Code (such as fabricating false evidence under Sections 192-195 IPC), and specific procedures exist in the Criminal Procedure Code for addressing such conduct (Sections 340, 345, 346, 348), the High Court should exercise restraint and not invoke its contempt jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The proviso to Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act bars High Court jurisdiction when the alleged contempt is an offence punishable under IPC. Contempt proceedings should be initiated only when there is real prejudice constituting substantial interference with the due course of justice, and not as an omnibus remedy for every wrong affecting judicial proceedings.
On this section: Giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction for offences punishable with imprisonment for life or 7+ years
-
Udai Singh vs State of Rajasthan
Decided under Indian Penal Code 195, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
For prosecution of a public servant (police officer) for offences under Sections 193, 195, and 196 IPC (relating to false evidence in judicial proceedings), a written complaint from the court in relation to which the offences were committed is mandatory under Section 195 Cr.P.C. Additionally, for prosecution under Sections 166 and 167 IPC for acts allegedly committed in discharge of official duty, prosecution sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. from the competent authority is necessary. Absence of these procedural requirements renders the prosecution invalid and liable to be set aside.
On this section: Offence of giving false evidence in judicial proceedings. Court held that prosecution requires written complaint from the court in relation to which offence was committed.
-
Kaasula Balraju vs The State of Telangana
Decided under Indian Penal Code 195, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Obstructing public movement in one direction on a road, causing annoyance to the public exercising their right to use that road, constitutes public nuisance under Section 290 IPC read with Section 268 IPC, even if the obstruction is for a political cause like demanding district status. However, such obstruction does not constitute wrongful restraint under Section 341 IPC (which requires preventing movement in any direction), nor does it constitute unlawful assembly under Section 141-145 IPC (which requires criminal force or show of criminal force with specific common objects), and prosecution for disobedience under Section 188 IPC is barred by Section 195 IPC.
On this section: Bar on cognizance of Section 188 IPC offence - court upheld this bar, preventing prosecution for disobedience
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 231
What have the courts held on Section 231 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Jijimon K.M. vs State Of Kerala (16 Aug 2023) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 195, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Offences against public justice; cited as offences for which court can make complaint under Section 340 CrPC. Another 3 judgments on this section are set out below. They run from 2018 to 2023.
Is Section 231 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Non-bailable, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Is Section 231 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita cognizable?
Non-cognizable. "Cognizable" means a police officer may arrest without warrant; "non-cognizable" that they may not. An offence under this section is triable by Court of Session.
How do I find court cases under Section 231 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BNS 231, section 231 BNS, section 231 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type 231 bns in ipc and 231 bns act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 4 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Jijimon K.M. vs State Of Kerala (16 Aug 2023).
What should I read with Section 231 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it. It carries forward IPC 195 (Giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of offence punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 231 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 231 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 231, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 2. Definitions2199 words
- 356. Defamation1543 words
- 335. Making a false document1318 words
- 101. Murder1177 words
- 303. Theft1104 words
- 3. General explanations858 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.