Giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of capital offence
Section 194 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of capital offence. 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 the laws for the time being in force in [India]] shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with rigoro 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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 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 the laws for the time being in force in [India]] 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;
If innocent person be thereby convicted and executed.
If innocent person be thereby conviceted and executed.--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.
195.
Giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction
Section 194, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 230 Giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of capital offence 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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
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.
-
Om Prakash vs Union of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Offences under the Central Excise Act, 1944, and offences under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, are non-cognizable in the sense that police officers cannot arrest without warrant and cannot investigate without Magistrate's order under Section 155 Cr.P.C. However, such offences are also bailable, because (1) they relate to recovery of revenue rather than punishment for grave crimes, (2) Sections 20 and 104(3) mandatorily empower officers to release arrested persons on bail, (3) the legislative scheme indicates intent that such offences should be bailable, and (4) the deeming language in Sections 9A and 104(4) making offences non-cognizable does not negate bailability. Non-cognizable and bailable are separate characteristics, and a statute can make offences both non-cognizable (restricting arrest authority) and bailable (entitling accused to bail).
On this section: Referenced as examples of non-cognizable offences that are nevertheless non-bailable, to show that non-cognizable does not automatically mean bailable.
-
Firosuddin Basheeruddin vs State of Kerala
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Criminal conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial evidence. When two or more persons agree to commit an illegal act or legal act by illegal means, that agreement constitutes criminal conspiracy even if the substantive crime is not committed. Not all conspirators need know every detail of the conspiracy; unity of objective is essential while there may be plurality of means sometimes even unknown to each other. Once the existence of conspiracy is proved, every act, declaration and writing of any conspirator referable to common intention is relevant against all conspirators. In organized crimes involving division of labour, each conspirator may perform different tasks in furtherance of the common objective, and each is liable for crimes committed by co-conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy regardless of whether that particular conspirator directly participated in the substantive offense. The prosecution must establish the agreement to commit an unlawful act through proved facts and circumstances from which reasonable inference of conspiracy may be drawn, and the court must guard against unfairness by ensuring cogent evidence of involvement of each accused.
On this section: Giving/fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction for capital offence - cited but accused found not guilty of this charge
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 194
What have the courts held on Section 194 of the Indian Penal Code?
Om Prakash vs Union of India (30 Sep 2011) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Referenced as examples of non-cognizable offences that are nevertheless non-bailable, to show that non-cognizable does not automatically mean bailable. Another 1 judgment on this section is set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2001 to 2011.
How do I find court cases under Section 194 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 194, section 194 IPC, section 194 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 194 punishment and ipc 194 bnss. 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 Om Prakash vs Union of India (30 Sep 2011).
What should I read with Section 194 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
4 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 230 (Giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of capital offence), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 194 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 194 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 194, 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.