Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender
Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 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 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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, 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,
if a capital offence;
if a capital offence.--shall, 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;
if punishable with imprisonment for life;
if punishable with imprisonment for life.--and if the offence is punishable with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine;
if punishable with less than ten years' imprisonment.
if punishable with less than ten years' imprisonment.-- and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall 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 201, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 238 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.
Referred to by 1
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
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: s.201 ingredients: (i) offence committed, (ii) knowledge/reason to believe, (iii) causing disappearance of evidence, (iv) intent to screen. Mere presence of a relative in the house is not enough (Sukhram, following Palvinder Kaur).
-
Rajinder Singh vs State of Haryana
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
-
… Thereafter, the appellant called his friends Vishal and Akash (juvenile at the time of incident) for helping him in the disposal of the dead body. The appellant was found guilty for the commission of the offences under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as "IPC" for brevity) and Section 5 read with 25(1)(a) of Arms Act, 1959. His friend Vishal was also found guilty for the commission of the offence under Section 201 read with Section 34 of IPC. Both the convicts had preferred separate appeals …
-
… RAVIKUMAR, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Chhattisgarh in Criminal Appeal No.845 of 2013 whereby and whereunder it confirmed the conviction of the appellant under Sections 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the "IPC") punishable under Section 302, IPC, 201 and 498A of the IPC, in Sessions Trial No. 147 of 2012 and the sentences imposed therefor. 2. Shortly stated, the prosecution case is as hereunder: - The marriage between the appellant-convict and the deceased Smt. Pushpa was solemnised in the year 2006. The incident which …
-
… their sister was lying in almost naked condition with green grass having been put over her body and they suspected that their sister was murdered and she had not committed suicide. 3. The Investigating Officer, after completing the investigation, filed the chargesheet against the appellants for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860[1]( page-2-0) . The case was committed for trial to the Sessions Court and the District & Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag, vide the Judgment and Order dated 14.05.2004, convicted both the appellants for the commission of offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment …
Questions about Section 201
What have the courts held on Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code?
Sukhram v. State of Maharashtra (17 Aug 2007) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.201 ingredients: (i) offence committed, (ii) knowledge/reason to believe, (iii) causing disappearance of evidence, (iv) intent to screen. Mere presence of a relative in the house is not enough (Sukhram, following Palvinder Kaur). Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 15 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2007 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 201 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 201, section 201 IPC, section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 201 in bns and ipc 201 punishment. 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 201 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 238 (Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 201, 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.