Sections 191–195 IPC vs Sections 227–231 BNS — False Evidence

In India, Sections 227 to 231 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) replaced the false-evidence provisions, Sections 191 to 195 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), on 1 July 2024. The definitions and prison terms are unchanged; fines that were open-ended under Sections 193 and 194 IPC are now capped at ₹10,000, ₹5,000 and ₹50,000.

At a glance

The CrPC First Schedule classified Sections 193 to 195 IPC in the same way. None of these offences is compoundable under Section 359 BNSS, as none was under Section 320 CrPC. The next provisions follow in order: threatening a person to give false evidence (Section 195A IPC → Section 232 BNS, cognizable and non-bailable, up to seven years), using evidence known to be false (196 → 233), false certificates (197–198 → 234–235) and false declarations (199–200 → 236–237).

What changed

• Modified — Section 229 BNS (IPC 193): fines capped. Section 193 IPC said "shall also be liable to fine" in both limbs, and Section 63 IPC (now Section 8(1) BNS) makes a fine with no stated sum "unlimited, but shall not be excessive". Section 229(1) reads "fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees" and Section 229(2) "fine which may extend to five thousand rupees". The seven- and three-year terms are unchanged. The two limbs become sub-sections, and "in any other case" becomes "in any case other than that referred to in sub-section (1)".
• Modified — Section 230 BNS (IPC 194): fine capped and split. Sub-section (1) caps the fine at "fifty thousand rupees". The second limb ("and if an innocent person be convicted and executed…") becomes sub-section (2), which refers to "the punishment specified in sub-section (1)" instead of "the punishment hereinbefore described".
• Minor edit — "Court of Justice" becomes "Court". In Illustration (b) to Section 228, Explanations 2 and 3 to Section 229 and their Illustrations, and the Illustration to Section 231. BNS Section 2(5) defines "Court" in the words IPC Section 20 used for "Court of Justice".
• Minor edit — correction. The Illustration to Explanation 2 reads "A has given false evidence", where the India Code IPC text prints "A as given".
• Identical — Section 227 BNS (IPC 191). The definition, Explanations 1 and 2 and Illustrations (a) to (e) are word for word the same.
• Identical — Section 228 body and Section 231 body. Section 228 keeps the "electronic record" words inserted into Section 192 IPC in 2000; Section 231 keeps the "same as for the offence" punishment.

Statutory text (relevant extract)

Extract, Section 193 IPC (repealed from 1 July 2024):

Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine,

Extract, Section 229 BNS:

(1) Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees.

(2) Whoever intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence in any case other than that referred to in sub-section (1), shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to five thousand rupees.

How it works — the ingredients

Giving false evidence (Section 227). Three elements:

1. A legal duty to tell the truth — being "legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth", or "bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject".
2. A false statement, made "verbally or otherwise" (Explanation 1).
3. A guilty state of mind — the maker "either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true". Under Explanation 2, a false statement about one's own belief counts. Illustration (c) marks the line: a witness who honestly believes a signature is Z's has not given false evidence even if it is not. Illustration (d): swearing to knowledge of Z's whereabouts while knowing nothing is false evidence "whether Z was at that place on the day named or not".

Fabricating false evidence (Section 228). Causing a circumstance to exist, or making a false entry or a document or electronic record containing a false statement, intending that it may appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding, a proceeding before a public servant, or before an arbitrator, and may cause an erroneous opinion on a material point. Illustration (a): planting jewels in Z's box so that Z is convicted of theft.

Where the evidence is given (Section 229). Sub-section (1) applies to "any stage of a judicial proceeding". Explanation 1: a court-martial trial is a judicial proceeding. Explanations 2 and 3: an investigation directed by law preliminary to a proceeding before a Court, or directed by and conducted under the authority of a Court, is a stage of a judicial proceeding even if not held before the Court. Everything else falls under sub-section (2).

Aggravated intent (Sections 230 and 231). The accused gives or fabricates false evidence intending, or knowing it likely, that a person will be convicted of a capital offence (Section 230) or of an offence punishable with life or at least seven years (Section 231, which applies that offence's punishment). The Illustration to Section 231: false evidence aimed at a dacoity conviction exposes the witness to the punishment for dacoity.

What this means in practice

For a party who believes the other side lied in court

• Court complaint only. Section 215(1)(b)(i) BNSS bars cognizance of offences under Sections 229 to 233, 236, 237, 242 to 248 and 267 BNS "when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court", except on the complaint in writing of that Court, an officer it authorises in writing, or a Court to which it is subordinate. Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC was to the same effect for Sections 193 to 196, 199, 200, 205 to 211 and 228 IPC.
• The application. Under Section 379(1) BNSS (Section 340 CrPC), the Court may act "upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise", hold a preliminary inquiry if it thinks necessary, record a finding, and send a written complaint to a Magistrate of the first class. The test in the text is whether an inquiry is "expedient in the interests of justice".
• Appeal. Under Section 380 BNSS, a person whose application is refused by a Court other than a High Court, or against whom a complaint is made, may appeal to the Court to which it is subordinate; the resulting order is final and not subject to revision.
• "Court" in Section 215(1)(b) includes a tribunal constituted by or under a Central or State Act if that Act declares it a Court for the section (Section 215(3); the CrPC also listed "Provincial" Acts).

For the witness accused of false evidence

• Summary procedure. Under Section 383 BNSS, a Court of Session or Magistrate of the first class that expresses the opinion in its judgment or final order that a witness knowingly gave or fabricated false evidence may, after giving an opportunity to show cause, try the witness summarily: imprisonment up to three months, or fine up to ₹1,000 (Section 344 CrPC: ₹500), or both. Proceedings must be stayed if an appeal or revision is filed against that judgment (Section 383(4)).
• Mental element. Illustration (c) to Section 227 protects an honest belief. The Supreme Court's tests below require deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance before prosecution is sanctioned.

For a witness who is threatened

• Section 232 BNS (Section 195A IPC) punishes threatening a person with injury to make him give false evidence. Section 216 BNSS lets "a witness or any other person" file a complaint for it, so it does not need the Court's complaint; it is cognizable.

Judgments that still matter

M.S. Ahlawat v. State of Haryana and Anr., [1999] Supp. 4 S.C.R. 160 — 27 October 1999. A three-Judge Bench (Dr. A.S. Anand CJ, S. Rajendra Babu and R.C. Lahoti JJ.) set aside its own earlier order convicting the petitioner under Section 193 IPC for false affidavits and statements, which had been made after a show-cause notice without following Sections 195 and 340 CrPC. The Court held that it could not have assumed jurisdiction that way, noting that "Primarily this Court does not exercise any original criminal jurisdiction in relation to offences arising under Section 193 IPC", and that Article 142 cannot be used to ignore the substantive provisions of a statute. It declined to direct a fresh complaint because the sentence had been served, and left the conviction under Article 129 (contempt) undisturbed. The report as held shows no paragraph numbers.

Prem Sagar Manocha v. State (NCT of Delhi), [2016] 1 S.C.R. 34 (2016 INSC 19) — 6 January 2016. A High Court had initiated Section 340 CrPC proceedings against a ballistic expert whose answer to a court question differed from his written report. Kurian Joseph J., for himself and T.S. Thakur CJ, held that "Expert evidence needs to be given a closer scrutiny and requires a different approach while initiating proceedings under Section 340 of CrPC" (para 20). The expert had consistently said a definite opinion needed the firearm, and his answer was given "on the court's insistence", so it was "not even his voluntary, let alone deliberate" deposition (para 23). The proceedings were quashed and the appeals allowed (para 24).

James Kuniwal v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr., [2024] 8 S.C.R. 332 (2024 INSC 601) — 13 August 2024. B.R. Gavai, Sanjay Karol and K.V. Viswanathan JJ. (judgment by Karol J.) considered a High Court direction to file a complaint under Section 193 IPC over an accused's affidavit denying the complainant's allegations. Drawing on earlier decisions, the Court set out that a complaint needs a prima facie case, must be "expedient in the interests of justice", requires "deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance" and a reasonable foundation for the charge, and should be reserved for exceptional circumstances (para 16). It held that "a denial simpliciter cannot meet the threshold" (para 18), set aside the direction, quashed any proceedings arising from it and allowed the appeal (para 21).

All three judgments apply the IPC and CrPC. Section 227 BNS repeats Section 191 IPC word for word, Section 229 repeats the offence words of Section 193, and Section 379 BNSS repeats the "expedient in the interests of justice" test of Section 340 CrPC, so on a reading of the text their reasoning bears on the new provisions. No Supreme Court judgment applying Sections 227 to 231 BNS was found in the material searched for this page.

Which law applies to your case

Section 358(2) BNS preserves penalties incurred under the IPC and allows proceedings to be instituted, continued or enforced "as if that Code had not been repealed"; on a reading of that provision, false evidence given before 1 July 2024 is prosecuted under Sections 191 to 195 IPC. Procedure for matters pending on that date continues under the CrPC (Section 531(2)(a) BNSS). See which law applies to an offence before 1 July 2024.

Frequently asked questions

What is the BNS section for perjury (Section 193 IPC)? Section 229 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 replaces Section 193 IPC. Intentionally giving or fabricating false evidence in a judicial proceeding is punishable with imprisonment of either description up to seven years and fine up to ₹10,000 (Section 229(1)); in any other case, up to three years and fine up to ₹5,000 (Section 229(2)). Giving false evidence is defined in Section 227 and fabricating it in Section 228.

What changed between Sections 191-195 IPC and Sections 227-231 BNS? The definitions and the terms of imprisonment are the same. The main change is that fines now have limits: ₹10,000 and ₹5,000 under Section 229 and ₹50,000 under Section 230(1), where Sections 193 and 194 IPC said only "liable to fine". Sections 229 and 230 are split into sub-sections, and "Court of Justice" becomes "Court".

Is false evidence a bailable offence under the BNS? Under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 229 BNS is non-cognizable and bailable, triable by a Magistrate of the first class for judicial proceedings (Section 229(1)) and by any Magistrate otherwise (Section 229(2)). Sections 230 and 231 are non-cognizable, non-bailable and triable by a Court of Session. The CrPC First Schedule classified Sections 193 to 195 IPC the same way.

Can a private party file a criminal complaint for perjury? Not where the false evidence is alleged to have been given in, or in relation to, a proceeding in a Court. Section 215(1)(b) BNSS bars cognizance of offences under Sections 229 to 233 BNS in that situation except on the written complaint of that Court, an officer it authorises in writing, or a Court to which it is subordinate. The Court decides under Section 379 BNSS, after any preliminary inquiry it thinks necessary, whether an inquiry is expedient in the interests of justice.

When will a court order prosecution for a false affidavit? Section 379(1) BNSS allows a complaint where the Court is of opinion that it is "expedient in the interests of justice". Construing the same words in Section 340 CrPC, the Supreme Court in James Kuniwal v. State of Uttarakhand (2024) required, among other things, a prima facie case, a deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance and a reasonable foundation for the charge, and held that a mere denial in an affidavit did not meet that threshold.

What is the punishment for false evidence meant to get someone convicted of a capital offence? Under Section 230(1) BNS, giving or fabricating false evidence intending or knowing it likely to cause a person to be convicted of a capital offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment up to ten years, and fine up to ₹50,000. If an innocent person is convicted and executed as a result, Section 230(2) allows death or the punishment in sub-section (1). Section 231 applies the punishment of the target offence where it carries life or seven years or more.

Can a trial court punish a false witness summarily? Yes, within limits. Under Section 383 BNSS, a Court of Session or Magistrate of the first class that expresses the opinion in its judgment or final order that a witness knowingly gave or fabricated false evidence may try the witness summarily and impose imprisonment up to three months, or fine up to ₹1,000, or both. Section 344 CrPC allowed a fine up to ₹500. The Court may instead make a complaint under Section 379.

Which law applies to false evidence given before 1 July 2024? Section 358(2) BNS saves penalties incurred under the IPC and lets proceedings be instituted or continued "as if that Code had not been repealed", so on a reading of that text false evidence given before 1 July 2024 is prosecuted under Sections 191 to 195 IPC. Procedure in matters pending on that date continues under the CrPC under Section 531(2)(a) BNSS.

Related

• Offences against public justice: IPC 201-211 vs BNS 238-248
• Contempt of lawful authority: IPC 172-180 vs BNS 206-215
• Hostile witness: Evidence Act 145, 154, 155 vs BSA
• Hostile witness and accomplice evidence — BSA vs IEA
• Expert opinion: Evidence Act 45 vs BSA
• IPC to BNS master table
• Sections 340–352 CrPC vs Sections 379–391 BNSS — Offences Affecting the Administration of Justice
• Sections 195, 198 and 198A CrPC vs Sections 215, 219 and 220 BNSS — Restrictions on Prosecution: Complaint by Public Servant, Court or Person Aggrieved

Sources

• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette text): Sections 2(5), 8(1), 227 to 233 and 358.
• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (India Code text): Sections 20, 63, 191 to 196 (including 195A).
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette text): Sections 215, 216, 379, 380, 383 and 531, the Section 359 compounding tables, and the First Schedule entries for Sections 229 to 232 BNS.
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Sections 195, 195A, 320, 340 and 344, and the First Schedule entries for Sections 193 to 195A IPC.
• Judgments read in full text: M.S. Ahlawat v. State of Haryana (S_1999_4_160_169_EN.md); Prem Sagar Manocha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2016_1_34_48_EN.md); James Kuniwal v. State of Uttarakhand (2024_8_332_344_EN.md).

This page explains the statutory text and the judgments cited as they stand. It is not legal advice; for a specific case, consult an advocate.