Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender
Section 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender. 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 The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
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 shall,—
(a) if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine;
(b) if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine;
(c) if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.
Illustration.
A, knowing that B has murdered Z, assists B to hide the body with the intention of screening B from punishment. A is liable to imprisonment of either description for seven years, and also to fine.
Section 238, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 201 Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender Text carried over almost unchanged 96%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
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. This section is classified 3 ways.
| Offence | Punishment | Cognizable | Bailable | Triable by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Causing disappearance of evidence of an offence committed, or giving false information touching it to screen the offender, if a capital offence. | Imprisonment for 7 years and fine. | According as the offence in relation to which disappearance of evidence is caused is cognizable or non-cognizable. | Bailable. | Court of Session. |
| If punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for 10 years. | Imprisonment for 3 years and fine. | Non-cognizable. | Bailable. | Magistrate of the first class. |
| If punishable with less than 10 years' imprisonment. | Imprisonment for one-fourth of the longest term provided for the offence, or fine, or both. | Non-cognizable. | Bailable. | Court by which the offence is triable. |
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.
-
Sukhram v. State of Maharashtra
Decided under Indian Penal Code 201, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-2.pdf 2007-08-17 DATE VERIFIED (not same-date ROP order-3). Crl A 1203/2006. Thakker/D.K. Jain. s.201 needs (i) an offence committed, (ii) knowledge/reason to believe, (iii) causing disappearance of evidence, (iv) intent to screen. Mere presence of the father-in-law in the house is not enough (Palvinder Kaur). A-2's 201/302 convictions set aside. Do not remap 302/304B/498A (already filled).
On this section: Successor of IPC 201 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.9562). The four-ingredient screening test carries to BNS 238.
-
Rajinder Singh vs State of Haryana
Decided under Indian Penal Code 201, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In dowry death prosecutions under Section 304B IPC, once the prosecution establishes that: (a) the victim died within 7 years of marriage under circumstances otherwise than normal, (b) the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demand soon before death, the court must invoke the mandatory presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act that the accused caused the dowry death. The 'soon before her death' requirement is satisfied when there is proximate connection between the harassment and death, determined on case-by-case basis. Circumstantial evidence, including conduct showing consciousness of guilt (such as hasty cremation), combined with forensic evidence and credible witness testimony, can establish dowry death beyond reasonable doubt. Failure to explain incriminating facts within special knowledge (such as presence of pesticide or hasty cremation) permits adverse inference under Section 106 of Evidence Act.
On this section: Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, suppressing examination. Applied to convict accused for hasty cremation and destruction of evidence.
-
State of Karnataka vs Shantappa Madivalappa Galapuji
Decided under Indian Penal Code 201, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A child witness of tender age can testify in criminal proceedings if the child possesses the intellectual capacity to understand the questions put to the witness and to give rational answers thereto. The trial judge, after conducting preliminary examination to test the child's understanding, demeanor, and grasp of truth and its consequences, is the appropriate authority to determine competency. The evidence of a competent child witness cannot be rejected merely on the presumption that the child has been tutored because of staying with or being examined by an educated relative such as an advocate. If after careful scrutiny of child witness evidence, the court finds an impress of truth therein, the evidence can form the basis of conviction. When a High Court reviews a trial court's conviction, it must provide reasoned judgment indicating specific deficiencies in the trial court's assessment rather than setting aside the conviction abruptly without explanation.
On this section: Punishment for causing disappearance of evidence of offence or criminal knowledge. Applied to accusations of accused cremating the dead body to destroy evidence.
-
Rajni vs State of Uttar Pradesh
Decided under Indian Penal Code 201, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When documentary evidence in the form of school certificate and birth certificate from municipal authority showing date of birth is available, the Juvenile Justice Board cannot order medical examination for age determination. The hierarchy prescribed under Section 94(2) of Juvenile Justice Act 2015 must be strictly followed: school/matriculation certificate first, then birth certificate from corporation/municipality/panchayat, and only in absence of these can medical examination be ordered. The date of birth mentioned in school certificate is determinative of age and cannot be ignored. Further, the Juvenile Justice Board has no power of review under the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 to revisit its earlier acceptance of a date of birth in a previous proceeding. Additionally, when a juvenile accused of heinous offence has been on bail for more than three years without evidence of misuse, interference with bail order is not warranted unless there is evidence of misuse of liberty.
On this section: Causing disappearance of evidence of offence
-
Pravat Chandra Mohanty vs The State of Odisha
Decided under Indian Penal Code 201, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When police officers abuse their position of authority and commit custodial violence resulting in death, such offense is a matter of grave public concern affecting entire society and cannot be compounded merely on agreement of parties. The Court must exercise discretion based on public interest and nature of offense. Even when refusing to compound non-compoundable offense, Court can consider settlement between parties for purpose of reducing sentence. Wooden lathi and batten are weapons capable of causing death depending on manner of use. Custodial violence by police requires proportionately stringent punishment to have effective deterrent effect and instill confidence in criminal justice system.
On this section: Causing disappearance of evidence of offense. Applied in trial court conviction (later modified by High Court).
-
Pratap Kumar Choudhury vs The State of Odisha
Decided under Indian Penal Code 201, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When public servants, particularly police officers whose primary duty is to protect law and order, abuse their official position and commit acts of brutality resulting in death, such offences cannot be compounded even with the agreement of the victim's family and the settlement of compensation, as they constitute violations of fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution and are matters of grave public concern affecting the entire society. The punishment for such violations must be proportionately stringent to have effective deterrent effect and instill confidence in the criminal justice system. However, the fact of settlement and compensation between parties can be considered as a relevant circumstance for determining the quantum of sentence even when compounding is refused.
On this section: Causing disappearance of evidence of offence - applied to convict for cleaning blood and stool from police station premises
-
Ajay Kr. Ghoshal Etc vs State of Bihar
Decided under Indian Penal Code 201, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The power to order retrial under Section 386(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an exceptional power to be exercised only when the appellate court is satisfied that: (a) the trial was undertaken by a court lacking jurisdiction, or (b) the trial was vitiated by serious illegality or irregularity occasioning failure of justice, or (c) there was a misconception of the nature of proceedings such that there was no real trial. Mere procedural lapses or irregularities in investigation or conduct of trial, without demonstrable miscarriage of justice, are insufficient to order retrial. The appellate court must independently evaluate evidence and arrive at its own conclusions on guilt or innocence rather than remitting to trial court merely because procedural defects exist. De novo trial is a last resort remedy reserved for exceptional circumstances and must be guided by the demand of justice, balancing the accused's right to fair and speedy trial against societal interest in prosecution of serious crimes.
On this section: Destruction of evidence - charged against appellants; trial court convicted with 5 years imprisonment
-
Ganga Bai vs State of Rajasthan
Decided under Indian Penal Code 201, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When circumstantial evidence creates an unbroken chain leading to only one hypothesis of guilt, and particularly when an accused is found to possess blood-stained clothes recovered on their disclosure with no explanation provided during Section 313 IPC questioning, and when the investigation appears impartial with no suggestion of police malpractice, the conviction can be sustained based on such circumstantial evidence. Moreover, the acquittal of a co-accused charged under Section 34 IPC does not automatically entitle another co-accused to similar acquittal if there is conclusive evidence of direct involvement of that co-accused in the offence.
On this section: Destruction of evidence; the appellant was charged with destroying evidence relating to the murdered victims; the court found sufficient evidence of this offence through the concealment and disposal of bodies
-
Pawan Kumar @ Monu Mittal vs State of U. P.
Decided under Indian Penal Code 201, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a case rests on circumstantial evidence, conviction is justified when all incriminating facts and circumstances are found incompatible with the innocence of the accused or guilt of any other person, and a complete chain of events is established linking the accused to the crime. Confessional statements made to police, while inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, may be used as source of information to discover facts under Section 27, and such discoveries based on the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events can support conviction when combined with other credible evidence. In evaluating concurrent findings of fact by Trial Court and High Court, the Supreme Court will not interfere unless findings are vitiated by grave error of law or lead to serious and substantial miscarriage of justice.
On this section: Causing disappearance of evidence - applied for accused attempting to dispose of body
-
Shiv Kesh Giri @ Lalla vs State of U. P
Decided under Indian Penal Code 201, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In a criminal case based on circumstantial evidence without direct eyewitnesses, when confessions to police lead to discovery of incriminating materials (weapons, cartridges, stolen items) through Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, and when multiple pieces of circumstantial evidence form a complete and unbroken chain of events establishing motive, opportunity, and participation in the crime, the conviction of the accused can be sustained. The Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by trial and appellate courts unless such findings are vitiated by grave error of law, procedure, or misreading of evidence resulting in serious miscarriage of justice. Minor discrepancies and gaps in eyewitness testimony do not vitiate an otherwise strong and consistent chain of circumstantial evidence when the totality points conclusively to guilt.
On this section: Causing disappearance of evidence - applied for acts of hiding/disposing the dead body
-
State Tr. Insp. of Police vs A. Arun Kumar
Decided under Indian Penal Code 201, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the initial stage of criminal proceedings when considering whether to frame charges under Sections 227-228 (or 238-239) CrPC, if material on record discloses grave suspicion against the accused that has not been properly explained, the court is fully justified in framing charges and proceeding with trial, even if the strength of suspicion would not suffice for conviction. The test for prima facie case depends on broad probabilities and total effect of documents and evidence on record, not on conviction-level proof. Documentary evidence showing material discrepancies (such as added digits inflating quantities and values in export documents) that raise grave suspicion against accused is sufficient to frame charges, notwithstanding absence of eyewitness testimony, so long as the ingredients of alleged offences are discernible on the face of the material.
On this section: Causing disappearance of evidence - applied to destruction of shipping bills by customs officials
-
Patel Maheshbhai Ranchobhai vs State of Gujarat
Decided under Indian Penal Code 201, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a trial court abandons its prime duty to appreciate evidence for search of truth and disposes of a criminal case hastily without properly examining all available evidence, an appellate court can reverse the acquittal and convict the accused based on a proper re-appreciation of the evidence on record, particularly when the dying declaration of the victim is corroborated by circumstances and the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act applies. The courts have a constitutional duty to ensure justice and cannot remain passive when the prosecuting agency fails to present complete evidence or when there is evidence of collusion between the prosecution and the trial court. Both the prosecutor and the trial court have a duty to ensure that full and material facts are brought on record to prevent miscarriage of justice.
On this section: Causing disappearance of evidence. Accused were acquitted of this charge.
-
Ramaiah @ Rama vs State of Karnataka
Decided under Indian Penal Code 201, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When essential ingredients of a dowry-related criminal offence, particularly the demand for dowry and subsequent cruelty or harassment for non-payment thereof, are not established beyond reasonable doubt through credible evidence, conviction under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Section 498-A, and Section 304-B IPC cannot be sustained. The presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act can only be invoked after the prerequisite of proved dowry-related cruelty or harassment is satisfied. When an appellate court reviews an acquittal and finds that two views are reasonably possible on the evidence, with one view being favourable to the accused as taken by the trial court, the appellate court should not disturb such acquittal unless the trial court's reasoning is clearly unreasonable or vitiated by manifest illegality. Courts must scrutinize witness credibility carefully when inconsistencies exist between original complaint and later testimony, and when significant delays in lodging FIR lack satisfactory explanation.
On this section: Destruction of evidence; Court noted that cremation in presence and with consent of family members negates inference of intentional evidence destruction
-
Naseeb Jain @ Sonu vs State Of Haryana
Decided under Indian Penal Code 201, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a criminal revision petition is interconnected with another petition and an order has been passed in the connected petition on the same date, the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the revision petition with liberty to raise all grounds before the Trial Court at the appropriate stage, allowing the trial court to consider all arguments in the context of the interconnected cases.
On this section: Causing disappearance of evidence - charge in connected FIR
-
Shilpa Sonu Singh vs The State of Maharashtra
Decided under Indian Penal Code 201, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where an accused woman has undergone substantial incarceration (approximately two years) pending trial on serious charges, and considering her gender as a recognized factor in bail jurisprudence, bail may be granted on humanitarian grounds even when the High Court has previously rejected the bail application, without detailed examination of the charge's gravity or the evidence's strength.
On this section: Charge of causing disappearance of evidence with intent to screen offender
-
Duryodhan Rout vs State of Orissa
Decided under Indian Penal Code 201, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a person is convicted of multiple offences at one trial, including one offence for which the sentence is life imprisonment, the proviso to Sub-Section (2) of Section 31 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which limits aggregate imprisonment to 14 years, applies to prevent consecutive sentences. All sentences must run concurrently because life imprisonment means imprisonment for the entire remaining life of the convict, and the concept of consecutive sentences does not apply when one sentence is life imprisonment. The term 'imprisonment' in Section 31 CrPC includes life imprisonment as defined in the General Clauses Act, 1897, and life imprisonment is not equivalent to 14 years or 20 years but means imprisonment for the whole of the remaining period of the convict's natural life unless remitted by the appropriate Government.
On this section: Offence of causing disappearance of evidence of offence; applied in conviction of appellant for destroying evidence by concealing dead body
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.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… Mr. Ankit Mishra, Adv. Mr. Chinmoy Chaitanya, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The petitioner is an accused in a case bearing Crime No.109/2024 registered at Police Station Crime Branch Bhopal, District Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 61(2) and 238 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 66(d) of the Information Technology Act. His 2nd bail application was dismissed by the High Court. Being aggrieved, he approached this Court. He has already undergone incarceration since 14.09.2024. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the …
-
… Prashant Sen, Deputy<br>Advocate General | Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 140 of 2025, dated 01.05.2025, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 96, 61(2) and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, ( BNS ) 2023 at Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. <sup>1</sup> Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2. It has been asserted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. As per the prosecution's case, the victim …
-
… The present petition is filed by the petitioner– accused No.2 under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.), seeking bail in connection with Crime No.36/2025 registered at Lokapur Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 238, 315 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol. 3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows: The deceased Savitha was given in marriage to one Manjunath Laxman Kuri, who died in the year 2022. Hence, the brother Manjunath Kuri, accused …
Questions about Section 238
What have the courts held on Section 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Sukhram v. State of Maharashtra (17 Aug 2007) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 201, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Successor of IPC 201 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.9562). The four-ingredient screening test carries to BNS 238. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 15 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2007 to 2025.
Is Section 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Bailable, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Is Section 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita cognizable?
According as the offence in relation to which disappearance of evidence is caused is cognizable or 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 238 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 238, section 238 BNS, section 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 238 a section in hindi and bns 238 c in hindi. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Sukhram v. State of Maharashtra (17 Aug 2007).
What should I read with Section 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. It carries forward IPC 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 238, 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.