Concealing design to commit offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life
Section 118 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with concealing design to commit offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Whoever intending to facilitate or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby facilitate the commission of an offence punishable with death or [imprisonment for life], voluntarily conceals, by any act or illegal omission, the existence of a design to commit such offence or makes any representation The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1862. Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
Whoever intending to facilitate or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby facilitate the commission of an offence punishable with death or [imprisonment for life],
voluntarily conceals, by any act or illegal omission, the existence of a design to commit such offence or makes any representation which he knows to be false respecting such design,
if offence be committed-if offence be not committed.
if offence be committed-if offence be not committed.--shall, if that offence be committed, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or, if the offence of not committed, with imprisonment of either description, for a term which may extend to three years; and in either case shall also be liable to fine.
Illustration
A, knowing that dacoity is about to be committed at B, falsely informs the Magistrate that a dacoity is about to be committed at C, a place in an opposite direction, and thereby misleads the Magistrate with intent to facilitate the commission of the offence. The dacoity is committed at B in pursuance of the design. A is punishable under this section.
Section 118, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 58 Concealing design to commit offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life Text carried over almost unchanged 95%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
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.
-
Chandra Prakash vs State of Rajasthan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases of criminal conspiracy, the prosecution need not prove express agreement between conspirators; the agreement may be proved by necessary implication from circumstances. When assessing approver evidence, courts must first apply a reliability test to determine if the approver is a trustworthy witness on the evidence itself, independent of corroboration. Only if the approver passes the reliability test does the second test apply, requiring corroboration in material particulars that connects the accused with the offense. Such corroboration must come from independent sources and may be direct or circumstantial in nature. Under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, discovery of facts in consequence of information from an accused in custody is admissible if the information is credible and material discovery is effected; formal arrest is not necessary, only that the person be accused of an offense and in custody of a police officer. The broad definition of 'explosive substance' under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and 'explosive' under the Explosive Act, 1884 encompasses materials for making explosives; when such materials are possessed in conjunction with other explosive articles and components in large quantities, possession constitutes a criminal offense even without direct evidence of criminal intent if the circumstances demonstrate conscious possession for use in explosions. Sanction under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 requires only 'consent' for subjective appreciation and can be granted by District Magistrate pursuant to delegation from Central Government; the sanctioning authority need not be examined as a witness if the sanction document is properly proven and shows application of mind.
On this section: Abetment of act when person abetted commits offense or abettor knew act would be committed
-
The State of Maharashtra vs Amol Nanasaheb Jogdanda
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the primary witness (complainant) in a criminal case admits to an out-of-court settlement with the accused and recants the allegations, and no other credible corroborating evidence is presented by the prosecution, the accused persons must be acquitted as the burden of proof on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt has not been discharged. The court cannot convict based on mere allegations when the complainant himself contradicts the complaint and admits to amicable resolution of the dispute.
On this section: Charge of kidnapping - applied to determine if accused unlawfully compelled complainant to go with them
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 118
What have the courts held on Section 118 of the Indian Penal Code?
Chandra Prakash vs State of Rajasthan (09 May 2014) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Abetment of act when person abetted commits offense or abettor knew act would be committed. Another 1 judgment on this section is set out below, 1 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2014 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 118 of the Indian Penal Code?
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: IPC 118, section 118 IPC, section 118 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 118(1) in hindi and ipc 118(2). Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 2 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Chandra Prakash vs State of Rajasthan (09 May 2014).
What should I read with Section 118 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 58 (Concealing design to commit offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 118 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 118 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 118, came into force on 01 Jan 1862, having been enacted on 06 Oct 1860. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 499. Defamation1512 words
- 464. Making a false document1223 words
- 300. Murder1172 words
- 378. Theft980 words
- 108. Abettor745 words
- 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property727 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. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 7b7d4fe6-206b-4e33-81f1-b98b018acaf6). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.