- Published on
KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 238: Causing Disappearance of Evidence of Offence, or Giving False Information to Screen Offender
Introduction
Section 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) punishes conduct aimed at helping an offender escape legal punishment after an offence has been committed.
The section covers two principal forms of conduct:
- Causing evidence of the offence to disappear; or
- Giving false information respecting the offence,
provided either act is done with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment.
The central idea is:
OFFENCE COMMITTED + KNOWLEDGE/REASON TO BELIEVE + DISAPPEARANCE OF EVIDENCE OR FALSE INFORMATION + INTENT TO SCREEN = SECTION 238
Q1. What does Section 238 punish?
Answer:
Section 238 punishes a person who, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed:
- Causes evidence of that offence to disappear, with intent to screen the offender from legal punishment; or
- With the same intention, gives information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false.
Q2. What is the object of Section 238?
Answer:
The section protects the administration of criminal justice from deliberate interference after an offence has occurred.
It seeks to prevent persons from:
- Concealing traces of the offence;
- Destroying or removing evidence;
- Disposing of incriminating material;
- Giving false information;
- Helping the offender avoid punishment.
Core Principle
NO ONE MAY DELIBERATELY ERASE EVIDENCE OR LIE ABOUT AN OFFENCE IN ORDER TO SCREEN THE OFFENDER
Q3. Which IPC provision corresponds to Section 238 BNS?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments:
Section 238 BNS = Section 201 IPC
Q4. Has the substance of Section 238 changed under the BNS?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments:
- The language remains unchanged;
- The provision has been rearranged with clauses/sub-sections.
The supplied comments do not identify a substantive change in the ingredients.
Q5. What are the two principal branches of Section 238?
Answer:
The two branches are:
1. CAUSING DISAPPEARANCE OF EVIDENCE
and
2. GIVING FALSE INFORMATION
Both must be accompanied by:
INTENTION TO SCREEN THE OFFENDER FROM LEGAL PUNISHMENT
Q6. What are the essential ingredients of Section 238?
Answer:
The principal ingredients are:
- An offence has actually been committed;
- The accused knows or has reason to believe that the offence has been committed;
- The accused either:
- Causes evidence of the offence to disappear; or
- Gives false information respecting the offence;
- In the false-information branch, the accused knows or believes the information is false;
- The accused acts with intention to screen the offender from legal punishment.
Formula
ACTUAL OFFENCE + KNOWLEDGE + DISAPPEAR EVIDENCE / FALSE INFORMATION + INTENT TO SCREEN = 238
Q7. Must an offence actually have been committed?
Answer:
Yes.
According to the supplied comments, this is essential.
There must be:
AN ACTUAL OFFENCE
This is also supported by the supplied discussion of Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab.
Q8. Why is actual commission important?
Answer:
Because the section begins with the person:
“knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed”
Therefore, the offence under Section 238 is built upon the existence of an underlying offence.
Q9. What is the first mental element?
Answer:
The accused must:
KNOW
or
HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE
that an offence has been committed.
Q10. Is direct knowledge essential?
Answer:
No.
The section also covers a person who has:
REASON TO BELIEVE
that an offence has occurred.
Q11. Is mere suspicion sufficient?
Answer:
No.
According to the supplied comments:
MERE SUSPICION IS NOT ENOUGH
The prosecution must establish the required knowledge or reason to believe.
Q12. What is the second and most important mental element?
Answer:
The accused must act with:
INTENTION TO SCREEN THE OFFENDER FROM LEGAL PUNISHMENT
This is a defining ingredient.
Q13. What does “screen the offender” mean?
Answer:
For study purposes, it means helping the offender avoid detection, prosecution, conviction, or legal punishment.
The section is concerned with conduct deliberately designed to protect the offender from the consequences of the offence.
Q14. Must the accused intend to benefit himself?
Answer:
No.
The relevant intention is to screen the offender.
The section does not require financial or personal gain.
Q15. Can the “offender” be the accused himself?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments, yes.
The provision is broad enough to apply where the person causing disappearance of evidence is himself the offender in the underlying crime.
Memory
SCREEN SELF OR SCREEN ANOTHER
Q16. Why is this important?
Answer:
Because Section 238 is not limited to third-party assistance.
A person who commits an offence and then intentionally causes evidence of that offence to disappear may also fall within the section, according to the supplied commentary.
Q17. What is meant by causing evidence to disappear?
Answer:
It means deliberately removing, destroying, concealing, disposing of, or otherwise eliminating evidence of the offence so that it is no longer available in the ordinary course.
Q18. Must the evidence be completely destroyed?
Answer:
Not necessarily.
The phrase is:
“CAUSES ANY EVIDENCE … TO DISAPPEAR”
The focus is on making the evidence unavailable or removing it from detection.
Q19. Give a simple example of disappearance of evidence.
Answer:
A knows that B has committed murder.
A helps B hide the dead body so that the offence cannot be discovered and B can escape punishment.
That is the type of conduct directly illustrated by the section.
Q20. What does the statutory Illustration show?
Answer:
The Illustration states that:
- A knows B murdered Z;
- A assists B in hiding Z’s body;
- A intends to screen B from punishment.
A is liable under Section 238.
This illustrates:
KNOWLEDGE + CONCEALMENT OF EVIDENCE + INTENT TO SCREEN
Q21. Is disposal of a dead body a classic example?
Answer:
Yes.
The supplied Illustration and the supplied case of Palvinder Kaur both show that concealment or disposal of a dead body can amount to causing evidence of an offence to disappear, provided the remaining ingredients are proved.
Q22. Is accidental destruction of evidence sufficient?
Answer:
No.
According to the supplied comments, the act must be deliberate and purposeful.
Memory
ACCIDENT ≠ SECTION 238
Q23. Is negligence sufficient?
Answer:
No.
The section requires intentional conduct directed toward screening the offender.
Q24. What is the second branch of the offence?
Answer:
The second branch concerns:
GIVING FALSE INFORMATION RESPECTING THE OFFENCE
with the intention of screening the offender.
Q25. Is false information alone sufficient?
Answer:
No.
The person must also:
- Know or believe the information is false; and
- Give it with intent to screen the offender from legal punishment.
Q26. What is the mental element regarding false information?
Answer:
The accused must:
KNOW OR BELIEVE THAT THE INFORMATION IS FALSE
Q27. Must the false information actually mislead authorities?
Answer:
No actual success is expressly required.
The focus is on knowingly false information given with the intention to screen the offender.
Q28. Must the offender actually escape punishment?
Answer:
No.
The section focuses on the intention to screen, not on whether the attempt succeeds.
Q29. Is an honest but mistaken statement punishable?
Answer:
No.
For the false-information branch, the accused must know or believe that the information is false.
An honest mistake is different.
Q30. Is intention to screen required for both branches?
Answer:
Yes.
Both:
- Disappearance of evidence; and
- False information
must be connected with:
INTENTION TO SCREEN THE OFFENDER
Q31. Is mere destruction of evidence enough without intent to screen?
Answer:
Not under the specific structure of Section 238.
The disappearance must be caused with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment.
Q32. What if evidence is destroyed for an unrelated purpose?
Answer:
Section 238 would not automatically apply unless the required intention to screen the offender is proved.
Q33. Does Section 238 require a legal duty to inform?
Answer:
No.
That requirement belongs to Section 239.
Section 238 instead requires:
FALSE INFORMATION + INTENT TO SCREEN
Q34. How does Section 238 differ from Section 239?
Answer:
Section 238
The accused actively:
- Causes evidence to disappear; or
- Gives false information;
with intent to screen the offender.
Section 239
The accused is legally bound to give information but intentionally omits to do so.
Memory
238 = ACTIVE SCREENING
239 = INTENTIONAL SILENCE DESPITE LEGAL DUTY
Q35. How does Section 238 differ from Section 240?
Answer:
Section 238
False information must be given:
WITH INTENT TO SCREEN THE OFFENDER
Section 240
The person gives information respecting an offence knowing or believing it to be false.
Section 240 does not expressly require intention to screen.
Memory
238 = FALSE INFORMATION + SCREENING INTENT
240 = FALSE INFORMATION ABOUT OFFENCE
Q36. Is disappearance of evidence required under the false-information branch?
Answer:
No.
The two branches are alternatives.
The accused may commit the offence by:
- Causing evidence to disappear; or
- Giving false information with the required intention.
Q37. Is giving false information required under the disappearance branch?
Answer:
No.
Again, the two branches are alternative routes.
Q38. What is the role of the underlying offence in determining punishment?
Answer:
The punishment under Section 238 depends on the seriousness of the underlying offence.
The more serious the underlying offence, the more severe the punishment for screening it.
Q39. What is the punishment under Section 238(a)?
Answer:
If the underlying offence is punishable with:
DEATH
the accused may be punished with:
- Imprisonment of either description up to 7 years; and
- Shall also be liable to fine.
Memory
DEATH OFFENCE → 7 YEARS + FINE
Q40. What is the punishment under Section 238(b)?
Answer:
If the underlying offence is punishable with:
- Imprisonment for life; or
- Imprisonment which may extend to 10 years,
the accused may be punished with:
- Imprisonment of either description up to 3 years; and
- Shall also be liable to fine.
Memory
LIFE / 10 YEARS → 3 YEARS + FINE
Q41. What is the punishment under Section 238(c)?
Answer:
If the underlying offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not extending to 10 years, the accused may be punished with:
- Imprisonment of the same description provided for the underlying offence;
- For a term up to one-fourth of the longest term provided for that offence; or
- Fine; or
- Both.
Memory
BELOW 10 → ¼ OF MAXIMUM TERM
Q42. What is the punishment ladder?
Answer:
DEATH → 7 YEARS
LIFE / 10 YEARS → 3 YEARS
LESSER OFFENCE → ¼ OF LONGEST TERM
Q43. What does “same description” mean in clause (c)?
Answer:
It means the imprisonment must be of the description prescribed for the underlying offence.
So the nature of imprisonment under clause (c) follows the underlying offence.
Q44. Give a simple clause (c) example.
Answer:
If the underlying offence carries a maximum imprisonment of 8 years, the maximum imprisonment under Section 238(c) may extend to:
¼ × 8 years = 2 years
subject to the statutory wording regarding description of imprisonment.
Q45. What if the underlying offence carries a maximum of 4 years?
Answer:
The maximum under clause (c) may extend to:
¼ × 4 years = 1 year
Q46. What if the underlying offence carries a maximum of 6 years?
Answer:
The maximum under clause (c) may extend to:
¼ × 6 years = 1½ years
Q47. What is the classification of Section 238(a)?
Answer:
According to the supplied classification:
- Cognizable or Non-Cognizable according as the underlying offence is cognizable or non-cognizable;
- Bailable;
- Triable by the Court of Session.
Memory
238(a) = FOLLOWS UNDERLYING COGNIZABILITY + BAILABLE + SESSION
Q48. What is the classification of Section 238(b)?
Answer:
According to the supplied material:
- Non-Cognizable
- Bailable
- Magistrate of the First Class
Q49. What is the classification of Section 238(c)?
Answer:
According to the supplied material:
- Non-Cognizable
- Bailable
- Triable by the Court by which the underlying offence is triable
Q50. Is Section 238 always non-cognizable?
Answer:
No.
Clause 238(a) follows the cognizable or non-cognizable character of the underlying offence.
Clauses (b) and (c), according to the supplied classification, are non-cognizable.
Q51. Is Section 238 bailable?
Answer:
According to the supplied classification, yes.
All three categories are stated to be:
BAILABLE
Q52. Which Court tries Section 238(a)?
Answer:
COURT OF SESSION
Q53. Which Court tries Section 238(b)?
Answer:
MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS
Q54. Which Court tries Section 238(c)?
Answer:
The:
COURT BY WHICH THE UNDERLYING OFFENCE IS TRIABLE
Q55. Does Section 238 have an Explanation relating to foreign acts?
Answer:
Yes.
The Explanation supplied under Section 240 expressly applies to:
SECTIONS 238, 239 AND 240
It expands the term “offence” to include certain specified acts committed outside India which, if committed in India, would be punishable under the listed BNS provisions.
Q56. Does every offence committed outside India fall within that Explanation?
Answer:
No.
Only the acts corresponding to the specifically listed BNS provisions are included.
Q57. What are the listed BNS provisions in the shared Explanation?
Answer:
The supplied Explanation lists:
- Section 103;
- Section 105;
- Section 307;
- Section 309(2), (3), and (4);
- Section 310(2), (3), (4), and (5);
- Section 311;
- Section 312;
- Section 326(f) and (g);
- Section 331(4), (6), (7), and (8);
- Section 332(a) and (b).
Q58. What did the supplied comments say about Section 238 being “independent in nature”?
Answer:
The supplied comments state that Section 238 is independent in nature and that a person may be punished under it even if conviction for the principal offence does not take place.
This should be understood carefully.
The prosecution still has to establish the statutory ingredients of Section 238, including that an underlying offence was in fact committed.
Important Distinction
CONVICTION OF MAIN OFFENDER NOT ESSENTIAL
but
COMMISSION OF AN UNDERLYING OFFENCE MUST STILL BE PROVED
Q59. Why is that distinction important?
Answer:
Because failure to convict the principal offender does not necessarily mean that no offence occurred.
For Section 238, what matters is proof that:
- An offence was committed;
- The accused knew or had reason to believe this;
- The accused caused evidence to disappear or gave false information;
- The accused intended to screen the offender.
Q60. What is the significance of Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments, Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1952 concerned a charge under the corresponding Section 201 IPC.
The prosecution alleged that:
- The deceased had been poisoned;
- The body was concealed in a trunk;
- The body was later disposed of in a well.
The case illustrates that the prosecution must prove the underlying offence itself.
Q61. Why did the charge fail in Palvinder Kaur according to the supplied comments?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments, the medical evidence did not establish that the deceased died from poisoning.
Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove conclusively that the underlying offence alleged had been committed.
As a result, the charge under the corresponding Section 201 IPC could not be sustained.
Q62. What four requirements were emphasised in Palvinder Kaur?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments, the prosecution had to show:
- An offence was committed;
- The accused knew or had reason to believe that it was committed;
- The accused intended to screen the offender, whether himself or another;
- The accused disposed of or concealed the dead body with that intention.
Memory
OFFENCE – KNOWLEDGE – SCREENING INTENT – CONCEALMENT
Q63. Can a person be convicted under Section 238 merely because his conduct appears suspicious?
Answer:
No.
According to the supplied comments:
MERE SUSPICION IS INSUFFICIENT
The prosecution must prove the statutory ingredients.
Q64. Must the identity of the principal offender always be finally established by conviction?
Answer:
Not necessarily, according to the supplied comments.
The key issue is proof that an offence was committed and that the accused acted with the requisite knowledge and screening intention.
Q65. What is the easiest problem-question test for Section 238?
Answer:
Ask:
- Was an offence actually committed?
- Did the accused know or have reason to believe that it was committed?
- Did the accused:
- Cause evidence to disappear; or
- Give false information?
- If false information was given, did the accused know or believe it was false?
- Was the purpose to screen the offender from legal punishment?
- What punishment applies based on the seriousness of the underlying offence?
Q66. What is the shortest memory formula?
Answer:
“KNOW A CRIME HAPPENED + HIDE EVIDENCE OR LIE + INTEND TO SAVE OFFENDER = 238.”
Key Provisions (Study Notes)
1. Actual Offence Required
There must be:
AN OFFENCE ACTUALLY COMMITTED
Mere suspicion is insufficient.
2. Knowledge Requirement
The accused must:
KNOW OR HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE
that the offence has been committed.
3. Two Alternative Acts
First
CAUSE EVIDENCE TO DISAPPEAR
Second
GIVE FALSE INFORMATION
4. False Information Branch
The accused must:
KNOW OR BELIEVE THE INFORMATION IS FALSE
5. Special Intention
Both branches require:
INTENTION TO SCREEN THE OFFENDER FROM LEGAL PUNISHMENT
6. Offender May Be Self or Another
According to the supplied comments:
SELF OR ANOTHER PERSON
may be the person being screened.
Punishment Ladder
Underlying offence punishable with death
UP TO 7 YEARS + FINE
Underlying offence punishable with life imprisonment or up to 10 years
UP TO 3 YEARS + FINE
Underlying offence punishable with imprisonment not extending to 10 years
UP TO ¼ OF LONGEST TERM / FINE / BOTH
Memory
7 – 3 – ¼
Classification Notes
Section 238(a)
- Cognizability follows underlying offence;
- Bailable;
- Court of Session.
Section 238(b)
- Non-Cognizable;
- Bailable;
- Magistrate First Class.
Section 238(c)
- Non-Cognizable;
- Bailable;
- Court by which underlying offence is triable.
IPC Equivalent and BNS Position
According to the supplied comments:
Section 238 BNS = Section 201 IPC
The language remains unchanged, while the provision has been rearranged into clauses/sub-sections.
Quick Revision Notes
Section
238 BNS
Title
Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender
IPC Equivalent
Section 201 IPC
Foundation
An offence must actually have been committed.
Knowledge
Know or have reason to believe the offence was committed.
Act 1
Cause evidence to disappear.
Act 2
Give false information.
False Information Mens Rea
Know or believe it is false.
Special Intent
Screen offender from legal punishment.
Can offender screened be self?
According to supplied comments, yes.
Punishment
Death → 7 years + fine
Life / 10 years → 3 years + fine
Lesser offence → up to ¼ longest term / fine / both
Classification
Varies by clause as supplied.
Section 238 vs Section 239 vs Section 240
Section 238
HIDE EVIDENCE OR GIVE FALSE INFORMATION TO SCREEN
Special intent:
SCREEN OFFENDER
Section 239
INTENTIONALLY OMIT INFORMATION DESPITE LEGAL DUTY
Special requirement:
LEGAL DUTY TO INFORM
Section 240
GIVE FALSE INFORMATION ABOUT AN OFFENCE
Special requirement:
KNOW OR BELIEVE INFORMATION FALSE
No express screening intention required.
Ultra-Short Three-Section Memory
238 = SCREEN
239 = SILENCE
240 = LIE
Expanded:
238 = HIDE OR LIE TO SAVE OFFENDER
239 = SHOULD REPORT BUT DELIBERATELY DOESN’T
240 = VOLUNTARILY GIVES FALSE INFORMATION
Exam Traps
Trap 1 — Thinking disappearance of evidence alone is enough
Incorrect.
There must also be:
INTENT TO SCREEN THE OFFENDER
Trap 2 — Thinking false information alone is enough
Incorrect for Section 238.
The false information must be given:
WITH INTENT TO SCREEN
Trap 3 — Forgetting that an offence must actually have occurred
According to the supplied comments and Palvinder Kaur:
ACTUAL OFFENCE MUST BE PROVED
Trap 4 — Treating mere suspicion as sufficient
Incorrect.
MERE SUSPICION ≠ KNOWLEDGE OR REASON TO BELIEVE
Trap 5 — Thinking only another person’s offence can be screened
According to the supplied comments, the offender being screened may be:
THE ACCUSED HIMSELF OR ANOTHER
Trap 6 — Requiring conviction of the principal offender
Not necessarily.
The important point is proof that the underlying offence was committed.
Trap 7 — Confusing “no conviction” with “no offence”
These are different.
NO MAIN CONVICTION ≠ NO UNDERLYING OFFENCE
Trap 8 — Treating accidental loss of evidence as Section 238
Incorrect.
The act must be deliberate and carried out with screening intent.
Trap 9 — Forgetting the punishment depends on the underlying offence
Remember:
7 – 3 – ¼
Trap 10 — Confusing Section 238 with Section 239
238 = ACTIVE SCREENING
239 = INTENTIONAL OMISSION WHERE LEGALLY BOUND TO INFORM
Trap 11 — Confusing Section 238 with Section 240
238 = FALSE INFORMATION + SCREENING INTENT
240 = FALSE INFORMATION, KNOWING/BELIEVING IT FALSE
Trap 12 — Forgetting the common foreign-offence Explanation
The Explanation supplied under Section 240 applies to:
238 + 239 + 240
Rapid Revision Chain: Sections 238–248
238 = SCREEN OFFENDER
239 = OMIT INFORMATION
240 = GIVE FALSE INFORMATION
241 = DESTROY EVIDENCE
242 = FALSE PERSONATION
243 = HIDE PROPERTY
244 = FALSE PROPERTY CLAIM
245 = SUFFER FALSE DECREE
246 = FALSE COURT CLAIM
247 = OBTAIN FALSE DECREE
248 = FALSE CRIMINAL CHARGE
Best Memory Sequence
238 = SCREEN
239 = SILENCE
240 = LIE
241 = DESTROY
242 = PERSONATE
243 = REMOVE
244 = CLAIM PROPERTY
245 = SUFFER
246 = CLAIM IN COURT
247 = OBTAIN
248 = ACCUSE
Ultimate Memory Formula
SECTION 238
AN OFFENCE HAS BEEN COMMITTED
+
KNOWLEDGE / REASON TO BELIEVE
+
CAUSE EVIDENCE TO DISAPPEAR
OR
GIVE FALSE INFORMATION KNOWING/BELIEVING IT FALSE
+
INTENT TO SCREEN OFFENDER FROM LEGAL PUNISHMENT
= SECTION 238
Key Takeaway
Section 238 BNS punishes deliberate post-offence conduct designed to protect an offender from legal punishment.
The two methods are:
CAUSE EVIDENCE TO DISAPPEAR
or
GIVE FALSE INFORMATION
The indispensable mental element is:
INTENTION TO SCREEN THE OFFENDER
The accused must also know or have reason to believe that the underlying offence was committed.
According to the supplied comments and Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, mere suspicion is insufficient, and the prosecution must establish that an offence was actually committed. At the same time, conviction of the principal offender is not necessarily a prerequisite if the commission of the underlying offence and the other ingredients of Section 238 are proved.
The punishment depends on the seriousness of the underlying offence:
DEATH → 7 YEARS
LIFE / 10 YEARS → 3 YEARS
LESSER OFFENCE → ¼ OF LONGEST TERM
According to the supplied comments:
Section 238 BNS = Section 201 IPC
and the provision has been rearranged without a stated substantive change.
Final Memory Line
“238 = ACTUAL OFFENCE + KNOWLEDGE + HIDE EVIDENCE OR LIE + INTENT TO SCREEN THE OFFENDER.”
