Register as Advocate

IPC 196 vs BNS 196 – Using Evidence Known to be False

Comparison
Same

Indian Penal Code (IPC)

VS.

Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

Section: IPC 196

Using evidence known to be false

About IPC Section

Section 196 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, deals with the use of false evidence in judicial proceedings. While IPC 195 covers the act of giving or fabricating false evidence, IPC 196 extends liability to those who knowingly use such evidence, even if they were not the original fabricators.

Key provisions:

  • Any person who knowingly uses evidence which is false or fabricated, intending it to be accepted as true, shall face the same punishment as prescribed for giving or fabricating false evidence under IPC 193.

  • Punishment can include rigorous imprisonment up to 7 years and fine, depending on the nature of the case where the false evidence is used.

  • Example: If someone presents a forged document in court during a property dispute, knowing it is false, they are guilty under IPC 196.

This section emphasizes that misleading the court by knowingly relying on false evidence is equally criminal as fabricating it, thereby preserving the integrity of judicial proceedings.

Section: BNS 196

Using evidence known to be false

About BNS Section

Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is essentially a continuation of IPC 196 with no major substantive changes. It punishes any person who knowingly uses evidence that is false or fabricated, intending it to be taken as genuine in a legal proceeding.

Key provisions:

  • If false evidence is knowingly used in a proceeding, the punishment will be the same as for giving or fabricating false evidence (i.e., covered under BNS 193).

  • Punishment ranges up to 7 years imprisonment and fine, depending on the seriousness of the underlying offence.

  • Example: Submitting a manipulated audio recording in a criminal trial with intent to influence the outcome.

By retaining this provision, the BNS ensures that courts are protected against deceptive practices, and those who attempt to misuse the judicial process by using false materials are held accountable.