Indian Penal Code, 1860 · Chapter XI: Of False Evidence and Offences against Public Justice
Section 201: Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information, to screen offender— if a capital offence; if punishable with imprisonment for life; if punishable with less than ten years' imprisonment
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to offences and proceedings from before that date.
In plain words
Knowing or having reason to believe an offence was committed, causing its evidence to disappear, or giving false information about it, to screen the offender from punishment is an offence. The punishment depends on the seriousness of the offence screened.
- If the offence is punishable with death: imprisonment of either description for up to seven years, and a fine.
- If punishable with imprisonment for life or up to ten years: up to three years, and a fine.
- If punishable with less than ten years: up to one-fourth of the longest term for that offence, or fine, or both.
A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.
Official text
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.—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.—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.—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.
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 201
-
Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India & Anr.
Issue arose whether the Internal Complaints Committee-ICC constituted in one department of the Central Government has the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint of sexual harassment under the POSH Act against an employee…
-
The State of Jharkhand v. The Indian Builders Jamshedpur
Bharat Drilling & Foundation Treatment Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. (2009) 16 SCC 705, if requires to be referred to a larger bench for reconsideration and authoritative decision in order to obviate…
-
Sadiq B. Hanchinmani v. The State of Karnataka & Ors.
Issue arose whether the direction for investigation to the police issued by the JMFC-Judicial Magistrate First Class u/s.156(3) CrPC which was quashed by the impugned orders, justified; and whether the JMFC had…
-
Dashwanth v. State of Tamil Nadu
Trial Court found appellant guilty for the charges framed u/ss.302, 201, 363, 366 and 354-B of the IPC and s.8 r/w. s.7 and s.6 r/w. s.5(m) of the POCSO Act. An appeal against the said conviction was dismissed by the…
-
Nazim & Ors. v. The State of Uttarakhand
Whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing, beyond a reasonable doubt, a complete chain of circumstances leading only to the conclusion of guilt of the Appellants, or whether the circumstances leave room for…
-
Thammineni Bhaskar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the courts below convicting and sentencing the appellant u/ss.302, 364 and 201 IPC for kidnapping and murder of the informant’s son.
-
Mamman Khan v. State of Haryana
Issue arose whether the orders of the trial court, as affirmed by the High Court, directing segregation of the appellant’s trial from that of the co-accused and requiring the filing of a separate charge sheet solely on…
-
Akhtar Ali @ Ali Akhtar @ Shamim @ Raja Ustad v. State of Uttarakhand
Whether the conviction of the appellants, as recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court, deserves to be upheld or whether they are entitled to acquittal.
-
Phireram v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Whether the High Court erred in passing the impugned order, by which it disposed of the application filed by the appellant-complainant seeking cancellation of bail of the accused persons on the ground of threats being…
-
Putai v. State of Uttar Pradesh
The accused-appellants were convicted for the offences punishable u/ss.376(2)(g), 201 and 302 of Penal Code, 1860. The High Court dismissed the appeals against conviction preferred by the accused-appellants.
-
Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. Union of India & Ors.
Writ petition filed u/Art.32 challenging the continuing validity of the sentence of death against the petitioner, having been affirmed on appeal, declined in review, and followed by the rejection of mercy petitions and…
-
Sd. Shabuddin v. The State of Telangana
Whether the judgment passed by the High Court places a reverse burden of proof upon the appellant and is thus, legally unsustainable; whether the conviction u/s.411, IPC for dishonestly receiving stolen property can be…
-
State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan Etc.
Whether the order of the High Court granting bail to the respondents-accused persons in a case involving serious charges u/ss.302, 120B, and 34 IPC is perverse and legally unsustainable, warranting cancellation of bail.
-
Shanti Devi v. State of Haryana
Issue arose whether the courts below were justified in convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offences punishable u/ss.302/34 and 201/34 IPC for the alleged murder of the son of the informant.
-
Sukhdev Yadav @ Pehalwan v. State of (NCT of Delhi) & Others
Whether, an accused/convict who has completed his “life imprisonment for a fixed term” such as twenty years of actual sentence without remission, as in the instant case, is entitled to be released from prison on…
-
Jai Prakash v. State of Uttarakhand
Allegation against the appellant herein that he committed a forceful rape and strangulated a 10 year old girl child. The punishment handed down to the appellant by the Courts below was of death penalty. Whether the…
-
Kum. Shubha @ Shubhashankar v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction of the appellants by the High Court u/s.302 read with s.120-B, IPC and additionally, s.201, IPC for A-4 alone, is justified.
-
Rahil & Anr. v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi)
Whether the High Court erred in reversing the acquittal passed by the trial court and convicting the appellants for offence u/s.302, Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing them to life imprisonment.
-
Vaibhav v. The State of Maharashtra
In a case based on circumstantial evidence where there were missing links in the chain of circumstances, whether the finding of the High Court regarding the conviction of the appellant for offences u/ss.302, 201 r/w…
-
Padman Bibhar v. State of Odisha
Whether appellant can be convicted only on the basis of evidence on ‘last seen together’.
-
Waris v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Whether Trial Court ought to have given proper time and opportunity to the legal aid defence counsel to prepare the matter and should have deferred the cross-examination of PW-1 by a reasonable time so as to ensure…
-
Ramkirat Munilal Goud v. State of Maharashtra Etc.
Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court upholding the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for causing rape and murder of a child aged 3 years and 9 months.
-
K.P. Tamilmaran v. The State by Deputy Superintendent of Police
Whether the High Court was justified in upholding the conviction and sentence of A-15 under Sections 217, 218, Penal Code, 1860 and ss.3(2)(i), 4, SC/ST Act, 1989 and modifying the conviction and sentence of A-14, while…
-
Sachin v. State of Maharashtra
Issue arose whether, the High Court could enhance the sentence under its revisional powers in a convict’s appeal against conviction.
-
Yuvraj Laxmilal Kanther & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra
Issue arose as to whether the High Court was correct in dismissing the revision application filed by the appellants assailing the order of the trial court dismissing their discharge applications u/s.227 CrPC.
-
Karandeep Sharma @ Razia @ Raju v. State of Uttarakhand
In a case based on circumstantial evidence, whether the concurrent conviction of the appellant-accused for the kidnapping, rape/sexual assault and murder of a minor is sustainable.
-
Sudershan Singh Wazir v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
Issue arose as regards the correctness of orders passed by the High Court staying the discharge of the accused and directing him to surrender before the trial court.
-
Md. Bani Alam Mazid @ Dhan v. State of Assam
In a case where the appellant alongwith a co-accused was alleged to have kidnapped and murdered the minor daughter of PW1, the issues for consideration were: (i) Whether the chain of circumstantial evidence based on…
-
The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Balveer Singh
Does the Evidence Act, 1872 prescribe any particular age as a determinative factor to treat a witness to be a competent witness; Does the Evidence Act treat evidence of a child on the same footing as any other witness;…
-
Tapas Kumar Palit v. State of Chhattisgarh
Appellant in judicial custody for 5 years, no certainty as regards the time likely to take in conclusion of the trial. Whether the appellant is entitled to bail.
-
Raja Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh
Whether the prosecution failed to prove the chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the appellant-accused, beyond reasonable doubt.
-
Sanjay v. State of Uttar Pradesh
The Appellant/accused was convicted under Section 302 IPC and 376(2)(G) IPC for alleged murder of a four-year-old girl. The Trial Court convicted the Appellant and sentenced him to death, which was later confirmed by…
-
Sovaran Singh Prajapati v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
a. Whether the Trial Court followed the basic requirements of a fairly conducted trial, in accordance with well-established prepositions of law, before imposing death sentence upon the Appellant/Accused? b. Whether the…
-
Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap v. The State of Maharashtra
Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for rape and murder of the deceased and imposition of death sentence.
-
Thammaraya and Another v. The State of Karnataka
Whether the conviction of the appellants-accused under Sections 201 and 302 read with Section 34, Penal Code, 1860 is sustainable.
-
Vijay @ Vijayakumar v. State Represented by Inspector of Police
Whether the appellant's act of causing the death of the deceased fell within the scope of "grave and sudden provocation" under Exception 1 to Section 300 of the Penal Code (IPC), thereby reducing the offence from…
-
Sadashiv Dhondiram Patil v. The State of Maharashtra
Issue arose whether Village Police Patil is a Police Officer in terms of s. 25 of the Evidence Act; and whether the High Court erred in holding the appellant guilty of the offence of murder.
-
Abdul Nassar v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Whether the prosecution has proved by leading clinching and convincing circumstantial evidence that the accused had committed forcible and violent sexual assault on the child victim and, thereafter, strangled and killed…
-
Ashok v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Matter pertains to the correctness of the order of conviction and sentence against the appellant, for the offences punishable u/ss.376, 302, 201 IPC as also SC and ST Act 1989; and as regards the role of the Public…
-
Vijaya Singh & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand
Whether the Criminal Appeal filed by the Appellants challenging the conviction under Section 302/201 IPC can be entertained in the facts and circumstances of the case.
-
Suresh Chandra Tiwari & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand
(a) Whether the circumstances relied by the prosecution have been proved beyond reasonable doubt; (b) whether those circumstances are of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; (c)…
-
Randeep Singh @ Rana & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Issue arose as regards conviction and sentence of the appellants u/ss.364, 302, 120-B and 201 IPC for abduction and brutal murder of the victim, if justified.
-
M.R. Ajayan v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Issue arose whether the appellant has the locus standi to prefer this SLP against the impugned order; whether the High Court rightly held the proceedings in question to be hit by the bar u/s. 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C.; and…
-
Karakkattu Muhammed Basheer v. The State of Kerala
Issue as regards sustainability of the order of conviction and sentence of the accused, when the case not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused.
-
HDFC Bank Ltd. v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
What is the nature of enquiry while determining quashing of a First Information Report u/s.482 Cr.P.C., against a Bank and its Officials.
-
Uma & Anr. v. The State Rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police
Whether the High Court was able to demonstrate perversity and non-appreciation of the materials on record by the Trial Court while reversing its finding of acquittal.
-
Vishwajeet Kerba Masalkar v. State of Maharashtra
Whether the conviction of the appellant and the death sentence awarded for the alleged murders of his wife, daughter and mother were justified.
-
Manik & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra
Appellants-convicts are members of the police force and the allegation against them is misuse and abuse of their powers, in resorting to custodial torture of victim-S and tampering with evidence.
-
Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Evidence provided by the prosecution, if sufficient to secure a conviction of the appellant for the murder of the victim.
-
Ranjeet Mittal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. Etc. Etc.
High Court whether justified in quashing the charges against Respondent Nos.2-5 (husband and in-laws of the victim-deceased) holding that prima facie the respondents did not abet the deceased to commit suicide.
-
Mahendra Kumar Sonker v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Whether the conviction of the appellant under s.353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) can be sustained without proving assault and use of criminal force.
-
Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement
Appellant was incarcerated for around 17 months, trial yet to commence. Bail denied. Whether the trial court and the High Court correctly considered the observations made by this Court with regard to right to speedy…
-
Basamsetti Rama Devi v. The State of A.P. & Ors.
In cases relating to quashing of criminal complaint against the accused police officers-respondents in matters of custodial death, whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the committal order and…
-
Ram Prakash Chadha v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
In the chargesheet, appellant was accused for commission of offences u/ss. 302, 343, 217, 218, 330, 120B and 34, IPC. An application for discharge u/s. 227 of Cr.PC was rejected by the Trial Court. Whether the findings…
-
P. Sasikumar v. The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police
High Court, if justified in upholding the conviction of the appellant u/s. 302/34 as well as u/ss. 449, 404 and 201 r/w 302 IPC, in absence of test identification parade, where accused is a stranger to a witness and the…
-
Jadunath Singh v. Arving Kumar & Ors. Etc.
Criminal appeal filed by appellant Jadunath Singh against the Allahabad High Court’s decision to grant bail to Arvind Kumar, Chandra Kumar @ Chandu, and Rishi Kumar, who were convicted for life imprisonment under the…
-
Ravishankar Tandon v. State of Chhattisgarh
In a case based on circumstantial evidence wherein the appellants-accused persons were convicted u/s.302 r/w s.34, ss.120B and 201, s.302 r/w ss.34 and 120B, IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life, whether the…
-
Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund and Another v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
High Court whether justified in reversing the acquittal of the appellant Nos.1 and 2 and convicting them u/ss.302 and 201/34 and ss.302/34 and 201, Penal Code, 1860 respectively and sentencing accordingly; whether the…
-
Thirumoorthy v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police
Appellant-accused, a Child in Conflict with Law on the date of the incident was convicted and sentenced u/ss.363, 342, 302, 201 r/w 302, IPC and s.6, POCSO Act. Trial, conviction and sentence of the appellant, if was…
-
Kalinga @ Kushal v. State of Karnataka By Police Inspector Hubli
Whether the extra judicial confession of the appellant-accused was admissible, credible and sufficient for his conviction thereon for the murder of his brother-PW-1’s son; whether the testimony of PW-1 could be termed…
-
Mariam Fasihuddin & Anr. v. State by Adugodi Police Station & Anr.
The crux of respondent No. 2’s allegations is that the appellants purportedly forged his signature on the passport application submitted to obtain the minor child’s passport. Whether the actions of the appellants prima…
-
Nara Chandrababu Naidu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.
Interpretation of s.17A, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 incorporated by the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 26 of 2018 and its applicability to the facts of the present case.
-
Madan v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Six deaths were caused on account of brutal firing by the appellants and other accused persons. The trial court imposed sentence of capital punishment to the appellants (‘M’ and ‘S’) herein for the offence punishable…
-
State of Karnataka v. T. Naseer @ Nasir @ Thandiantavida
The High Court rejected the applications filed by the prosecution u/s. 311 of the Cr.P.C., seeking recall of PW-189 and to permit the prosecution to produce the report and the certificate u/s. 65B of the Evidence Act,…
-
Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of
The two appeals are filed by the appellant-former Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi seeking bail in the prosec utions arising from a case registered by the CBI under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Penal…
-
Naveen @ Ajay v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Whether appellant was afforded a fair trial; whether he was deprived of his valuable legal rights.
-
Chandra Pratap Singh v. State of M.P.
Whether the High Court was justified in altering the charge u/s. 302 read with ss. 148 and/or 149 to a charge u/s . 302/34 IPC, and convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence punishable u/s 302/34 and u/s.…
-
Rajesh & Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
In a case based on circumstantial evidence as there was no eyewitness to the kidnapping and murder, and where the prosecution’s case essentially turned upon the ‘recoveries’ made at the behest of the…
- R. Sreenivasa v. State of Karnataka
-
Krishan Kumar and Anr. v. The State of
Conviction of the appellants-accused u/ ss.201, 300, 302, IPC r/w s.34 based on circumstantial evidence, consisting of evidence of last seen, extra judicial confession, recovery of w eapon of offence and motive, if…
- Wazir Khan v. State of Uttarakhand
- Prakash Nishad @ Kewat Zinak Nishad v. State of
- Ravi Mandal v. State of Uttarakhand
- Y. Balaji v. Karthik Desari & Anr. Etc.
- Mukeshbhai Vallabhbhai Abhangi v. State of
- Digambar v. The State of Maharashtra
- State of Madhya Pradesh v. Phoolchand Rathore
- Suneetha Narreddy v. Y S Avinash Reddy & Anr.
- Maghavendra Pratap Singh @ Pankaj Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh
- Charan Singh @ Charanjit Singh v. The State of
- Siju Kurian v. State of Karnataka
- Sundar @ Sundarrajan v. State by Inspector of
- Pradeep Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh
- Guna Mahto v. State of Jharkhand
- Pawan Kumar Chourasia v. State of Bihar
- Karan @ Fatiya v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
- John Anthonisamy @ John v. State, Rep. by the
- The State Through Central Bureau of Investigation v. T. Gangi Reddy @ Yerra Gangi Reddy
- Prem Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi
- State of Jharkhand v. Shiv Shankar Sharma and Ors.
- Rahul v. State of Delhi Ministry of Home Affairs & Anr.
- S. Kaleeswaran v. State by the Inspector of Police Pollachi Town East Police Station, Coimbatore District, Tamil Nadu
- Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq v. State (Nct of Delhi)
- Md. Anowar Hussain v. State of Assam
- Joseph Johnson N. Maithkuri v. Subrahmanya & Another
- Ram Sharan Chaturvedi v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
- Ram Niwas v. State of Haryana
- Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
- Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors
- Hajabhai Rajashibhai Odedara v. State of Gujarat