Section 228 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS): Fabricating false evidence

The truthfulness of evidence is still a fundamental component of justice in a time when information is widely exchanged and technology is used extensively in court proceedings. A crucial problem in the judicial system is the creation of false evidence, which is addressed in Section 228 of the BNS. This section describes the intentional steps people take to create false data, misleading situations or misleading papers in order to manipulate the facts in court proceedings. 

Such acts have serious consequences, risking not just the integrity of the legal system but also weakening public confidence in it. The definition of manufacturing false evidence, the legal ramifications of such acts and the wider significance of upholding honesty in evidence presentation will all be covered as we investigate this section.

Section 228 of BNS

Fabricating false evidence includes all actions that create false environments or records, including translating existing documents into falsehoods or generating new false documents, with a focus on the intention of achieving a desired result purely because of its usage in law. The objective of this is to sway the judgement of people, especially judges, juries or arbitrators, making such persons find errors that will be detrimental in the judgment of the case at hand. This highlights the serious nature of such deceit and its potential to undermine the integrity of the legal system.

Section 228 of BNS is part of CHAPTER XIV OF FALSE EVIDENCE AND OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC JUSTICE in Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Legal Statement of Section 228 of BNS

Whoever causes any circumstance to exist or makes any false entry in any book or record or electronic record or makes any document or electronic record containing a false statement, intending that such circumstance, false entry or false statement may appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding or in a proceeding taken by law before a public servant as such or before an arbitrator and that such circumstance, false entry or false statement, so appearing in evidence, may cause any person who in such proceeding is to form an opinion upon the evidence, to entertain an erroneous opinion touching any point material to the result of such proceeding is said “to fabricate false evidence”.

Illustration Given

1. A puts jewels into a box belonging to Z, with the intention that they may be found in that box and that this circumstance may cause Z to be convicted of theft. A has fabricated false evidence. 

2. A makes a false entry in his shop-book for the purpose of using it as corroborative evidence in a Court. A has fabricated false evidence. 

3. A, with the intention of causing Z to be convicted of a criminal conspiracy, writes a letter in imitation of Z’s handwriting, purporting to be addressed to an accomplice in such criminal conspiracy and puts the letter in a place which he knows that the officers of the police are likely to search. A has fabricated false evidence.

Meaning of the Statements of Section 228 of BNS

The act of creating fake evidence is defined in the statement. It defines the acts of someone who intentionally builds situations or enters incorrect information in written or digital records. In order to present this misleading information in a legal setting, such a court or a hearing, this involves creating documents that contain fraudulent statements. 

The purpose is to manipulate the perceptions of ruling authorities so that they make wrong assumptions about very important matters that can determine the outcome of a case. Basically, it gives evidence of the diligence of the fraud and how harmful it can be to the legal framework.

People Also Read: What is the Relation Between Section 16 of BNS and Section 78 of IPC

Definition of Section 228 of BNS

1. Intentionally Creation of Circumstances :

This unlawful act is done with the desire to cause false situation. This means that person takes actions in order that certain circumstances will be created and they will be able to use such circumstances against someone in the court, by distorting the facts.

2. Making False Entries: 

This includes the act of altering or fabricating entries in any type of record, whether they are physical books, digital files or other forms of documentation. The inauthentic aspects are designed to create a false narrative that will work in favor of the person for their aims.

3. Creating False Documents :

The disciplinary actions established against the alteration of evidence entails also helps to preserve the court’s integrity because the court does not base its decisions on falsehood but on the truth.

4. Purposeful Presentation in Legal Contexts:

The intention behind these acts is an important component. The person must intend for the fabricated evidence to be used in court, in a hearing before a public official or in arbitration situations, among other legal actions. This shows how intentional the fraud was.

5. Particular Situations which this Rule Applies: 

This Section provides consideration to different legal settings and presented the evidence where it was relevant for the courts, regulatory bodies and arbitration of disputes. Such wide range of coverage indicates the potential seriousness of the crime of falsification of evidence in legal systems.

6. Impact on the Judgment of Individuals: 

The last end in the chain of the action of creating false evidence is to change the attitude of a judge, a jury or an arbitrator. The aim is to mislead these individuals about the opinions they should have concerning crucial facts determining the judgement. This of course creates a very wrong picture of the reality

7. Proper and Adequate Consequences on the Law:

The legal system may suffer significant consequences if there is fraudulent evidence. The falsified evidence can change the course of proceedings and possibly produce unfair outcomes by making decision-makers consider incorrect views. This shows how serious such acts are since they affect the general integrity of the legal system in addition to having an impact on particular cases.

What Does It Mean to Fabricate False Evidence?

The essential definition of fabrication of evidence is creating a situation, record or even a document which falsely represents the truth with intent. This may happen in the following ways:

1. False Entries in Records: 

Entering incorrect information in paper or computerized official records with a purpose of disinformation.

2. False Statements: 

Preparing writings with known false content that are prepared for use in a court or administrative audience.

3. Distortion of facts and Actions in Furtherance of the Deceit: 

The most significant thing about these acts is the purpose with which they are performed. The guilty party seeks to use these for evidence in court or other proceedings in order to achieve the response they desire.

The Consequences of Fabricating Evidence

The guilt of producing untrue evidences comes with immense outcomes. Below are the various effects one may likely face :

1. Criminal Prosecution: 

Such practice can lead an individual to face prosecution in a lawsuit for instance charging this person with perjury or obstruction of justice which may lead to heavy fines and even imprisonment.

2. Civil Responsibility: 

Alongside facing the criminal consequences, individuals can also be sued by persons who are the victims of the falsehood and this can lead to monetary compensation.

3. Detrimental Effects on Reputation: 

Being found guilty for the crime of manufacturing surrogate evidence makes it impossible for anyone to reconstruct their good name after this as probably their career will have been ruined as well.

4. Effect on the Process of Seeking Justice: 

The introduction of false evidence can cause the proper functioning of the justice system, resulting in convicting the wrong individuals or denying justice to the right ones.

Disruption of Public Peace 

Any person who willingly allows the creation of a particular situation or forges any books, records or electronic documents or crafts or alters any document or electronic record purporting to be true details, for the purpose of having it, such situation, forged record or document to give false evidence or producing – or in anticipation of production – during proceedings before a court of law or an officer of justice or an arbitration tribunal with the determined intention that such falsehood, if produced, would cause any participant in the hearing to reach a wrong conclusion on a relevant aspect of the hearing, shall be regarded as having engaged in the crime of conspiracy to commit evidence tampering and further the public order suffer as a result of such conduct.

Committing this act of evidence tampering is not only a crime by itself, it poses a pulse threat to the efficiency of the legal system as it curtails the due process of law and prejudices the rights of the people within that society. Hence any person who is proven to have committed this offense shall be liable to such legal consequences as the law provides.

Importance of Punishment in Section 228 of BNS

Punishment for Section 228 of BNS is given under Section 229 of BNS. Therefore, here are the importance of Punishment for fabricating false evidence:

1. Deterrence: 

The unwanted outcomes which await a would-be offender serve to curb the offender’s tendencies. For example, few if any, would consider the act of producing false evidence, knowing the kind of consequences that follows such a behavior. Thus, the contemporary reality of legal protection against evidence tampering is such that the risk of it being done is far greater than the supposed benefits from doing so. 

2. Justice Servicing: 

The very essence of any legal order is dispensing justice without favor or hatred. The presence of such evidence may affect the tribunal members in such a way as to lead them to incorrect imaginations which may be detrimental in reaching a fair verdict in a given case. The punitive measures put in place for evidence tampering also helps in maintaining the integrity of the court in that, the courts do not rely on lies to arrive at a decision.

3. Enhancing Public Confidence : 

The administration of justice must not condone the use of fabrications as evidence lest it erodes the confidence of the people in the justice system. The penal consequences for such acts bring home the principle that the law works and those who breach it will be punished. This creates confidence in the legal framework and also in the society at large.

4. Responsibility: 

Everyone who decides to commit an act of creating a false manuscript will face punishment for doing so. It reiterates the idea that all people, no matter who they are, are equal before the law and every participant in a legal action has to answer for their behavior.

5. Maintenance of Legal Obligations : 

The legal system is built upon the proper handling of evidence in presented. Evidentiary misrepresentation and tampering defeat the essence of these principles and may lead to miscarriage of justice. The sanctions that are attached to this vice act as a warning to all those who may wish to interfere with the evidence that is presented against an accused person thus maintaining the integrity of the vigorous legal process.

6. Prevention of Abuse : 

The repercussions that come with the crime of fabricating evidence also deter people from attempting to misinterpret the law to their benefit. This is very important where the issue at hand is a contentious one like who owns what in the case of property or who has custody of the child or for that matter even of a criminal case. This is also done to avoid the risk of displacing the objective of justice.

Importance of Integrity in Legal Processes

The judicial system is singularly dependent on the evidence presented in courts. Judges, jurors and arbitrators need information which is right and, hence, useful for making appropriate decisions. The introduction of “playing dirty” evidence compromises cases and endangers the faith that the people have towards the whole justice system.

Sustaining the integrity of the judicial proceedings, it is imperative that every one of the participants including the lawyers, the witnesses and the public servants refrain from lying. This allows the appropriate dispensation of justice.

Importance of Punishment in Today’s World for Fabricating False Evidence

Punishing people who create evidence is more important than ever in the complicated and fast-paced world of today. The integrity of judicial institutions and the general trust society has in justice are seriously threatened by the fabrication of false evidence, as stated in Section 228 of the BNS. This includes making false entries in books, records, documents or electronic records. 

In the current period, where technology, globalization and growing legal complexity have further increased the potential effects of faking evidence, punishment for such acts is extremely important. Here’s why, in the modern world, punishing such behaviour is so important:

1. Protection of Digital Integrity : 

In the current digital era, a large portion of the evidence used in court cases is kept on electronic devices; emails, digital files and even blockchain records are being used more and more. Access to digital tools has made it simpler to fabricate fake evidence, enabling people to alter electronic documents in ways that would be hard to spot.

The growing issue of digital forgeries, which could have serious consequences in the legal and business globes, would not be significantly prevented without the possibility of penalty. Maintaining the truthfulness and correctness of records requires punishing people who create digital evidence.

2. Cross-Border Impact and Globalisation : 

Due to the interconnection of the modern world, legal issues are not limited to a single jurisdiction. Reliable evidence from several legal systems must be presented in cross-border conflicts, multinational contracts and even human rights situations.

In such circumstances, fabricating evidence destroys not only the court of law of that specific country, but also encompasses the world’s trust in legal systems. Proportionate deterrent measures against evidence fabrication encourage international justice by demonstrating that such practice is intolerable, even across national boundaries.

3. Technological Developments and Evidence Manipulation : 

In a world where innovation is growing at an unprecedented rate, new methods of tampering with evidence are being developed at the same or eerily similar pace. Due to the introduction of certain technologies, the rate at which false claims and directives can be put out through doctored images or video footage has gone up, making it hard to prove what is true and what is not in a court of law. The legal regimes that aim at the protection of the society from such behavior must not only be developed but up to the fast changing technology as well. 

The integrity of trials and the trust of the public in judicial outcomes would be at risk if there were no effective measures to deter individuals or organizations from taking advantage of such technologies for producing fake evidence.

4. Safeguarding Public Trust in the Legal System : 

In an era where the faith of the general populace in such establishments is often tenuous, it is of utmost importance to maintain the integrity of the law itself. False evidence fabrication damages confidence in the justice system overall as well as in the particular legal case.

People may lose faith in the fairness of trials and the rule of law may collapse if they think that misleading evidence may be introduced with no repercussions. One of the most important ways to protect the public’s confidence in legal proceedings is to punish individuals who fabricate evidence.

5. Increasing Difficulty of Legal Matters : 

Today’s legal matters frequently involve several parties, international rules and specialised or technical evidence, making them more complex and varied. The higher the risks involved, such as in an individual’s family, in contracts or even protecting a state, the more disastrous the consequences of making wrong conclusions become. Fabricating evidence can be detrimental to one’s case in this situation.

Giving false evidence in any case, be it a criminal offence, commercial arbitration or court proceedings is dangerous. To make sure that such acts are not ignored and that the legal system continues to be an equitable means of settling conflicts, punishment for creating false evidence is required.

6. Prevention of Corruption and Abuse of Power: 

When people in positions of authority distort evidence for their own benefit or to safeguard particular interests, it is frequently connected to broader trends of corruption, dishonesty and abuse of power. In order to prevent such abuses and keep those responsible for undermining justice accountable, punishment is essential. The legal system must show that everyone is subject to the law, regardless of their status, influence or authority.

7. Maintaining Justice and Fairness : 

In every legal architecture, the impetus for seeking justice and the universe of facts are fundamental. Every depositor of false evidence shall be punished by law so that all forms of justice are based on the objective reality rather than baseless, imaginary stories. In a situation where the court uses false evidences, the whole process is jeopardized to issues of wrong judgement and in serious cases, the execution of innocent persons.

In present-day society, where injustice may result in a loss of one’s money, or freedom or even identity, ensuring the integrity of evidence is of paramount importance. As a precaution, the penalty for creating false evidence makes sure that judgments are founded on the truth rather than lies.

Difference between IPC and BNS regarding Section 228 of BNS

Indian Penal Code (IPC)	Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)
In IPC, Section 192 deals with Fabricating false evidence.	In BNS, Section 228 deals with Fabricating false evidence.
It was assented on 6th October, 1860.	It received the assent of the President on the 25th December, 2023.
It came into effect on January 1, 1862.	It came into effect on July 1, 2024.
Statement:Whoever causes any circumstance to exist or makes any false entry in any book or record or makes any document containing a false statement, intending that such circumstance, false entry or false statement may appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding or in a proceeding taken by law before a public servant as such or before an arbitrator and that such circumstance, false entry or false statement, so appearing in evidence, may cause any person who in such proceeding is to form an opinion upon the evidence, to entertain an erroneous opinion touching any point material to the result of such proceeding is said “to fabricate false evidence”.	Statement:Whoever causes any circumstance to exist or makes any false entry in any book or record or electronic record or makes any document or electronic record containing a false statement, intending that such circumstance, false entry or false statement may appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding or in a proceeding taken by law before a public servant as such or before an arbitrator and that such circumstance, false entry or false statement, so appearing in evidence, may cause any person who in such proceeding is to form an opinion upon the evidence, to entertain an erroneous opinion touching any point material to the result of such proceeding is said “to fabricate false evidence”.

Key Diffrence between Section 228 of BNS and 192 of IPC

Although Section 192 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 228 of the BNS are very similar, they differ significantly. The BNS was designed with more detailed clauses to handle modern scenarios in court cases. In situations where the previous IPC would not be sufficient, such as digital records, online tampering and electronic manipulation, Section 228 expands the reach. With a stronger framework to address modern evidence-related offenses, this change guarantees that the law will continue to be applicable in today’s digital environment. 

Mechanism of Enforcement for Fabrication of False Evidence under Section 228 of BNS

Action Procedure for False Evidence Fabrication under Section 228 of the BNS

Ensuring the fair administration of justice and preserving the honesty of legal procedures depend heavily on the implementation of laws dealing to the fabrication of false evidence. People who intentionally make any false event, entry or document appear in evidence with the goal of misleading decision-makers are committing a serious violation under Section 228 of the BNS. The following enforcement tools can be used to successfully stop and penalise such fraudulent activities:

1. Investigations conducted by the police and other professionals

• Initiating an Investigation: 

Enforcement actions are taken whenever motivated by a reliable complaint or suspicion of wrongful evidence that may come from any of the parties to the legal proceeding or any enforcement agency by way of investigation. This too can be done by way of judicial notice, report of a whistleblower or even in the normal course of judicial proceedings when some discrepancies in the evidence presented are noticed.

• Investigation Process: 

Investigation of such evidence must be done by the police or other law enforcement agencies charged with different functions such as cyber crime, fraud investigation units, etc. They will check the available physical and electronic records, arrange for witnesses, look for signs of alteration in documents and also include the use of technology such as when collecting evidence to ascertain whether there is any evidence fabrication or tampering.

• Use of Experts: 

In the situation where technical evidence is extensive and complicated (such as computerized records, complex financial documents or technical scientific information), people like CVE experts and which are those that belong to that particular field, will be of use in such situations. Furthermore, digital forensics specialists, document analysts and handwriting analysis experts are often called upon to ascertain that certain documents or electronic files have not been deceived or forged.

2. The Function of the Judiciary in the Detection and Prevention of False Evidence

• Examination in the Court of Law: 

The first thing that comes to mind is the degree of caution the Judges are required to exercise when evaluating any pieces of evidence. If there are grounds for suspicion that the evidence has been tampered with, then the judge is entitled to demand further proof or an independent examination of the evidence. Where courts are called upon, they may order the examination of evidence and even solicit the opinions of professionals on any conceivable alteration of the evidence.

• Regulations on Conduct of Lawyers: 

A punishment specified by the laws leading to the conviction of the legal representative for perverting the course of justice by issuing false evidence may also bite. This is in addition to criminal charges which include being suspended and barred from legal service. At the center of their practice, there exist professional codes and as such, it is professionally unethical to give false evidence with full knowledge.

• Protective measures and Rehabilitation procedures: 

The court, in case of assessment of intent to lie by creating and presenting false evidence, may dismiss the evidence and impose sanctions on the party who created this evidence, which may involve, fines, prison terms and other sanctions provided by section 229 of the BNS.

3. Taking Offenders into Custody and Proceeding with Their Prosecution

• Liability Stage: 

After the crime of fabrication of evidence has been investigated, the state prosecutor (or the district attorney) does not finally charge the culprits actions. For example, the culprits of the crimes of evidence fabrication as demonstrated in Section 228 of the BNS, falsification and lying under oath may be legally charged depending on the situation.

• Judicial Proceedings: 

The court will instead try the accused and the prosecution will have the burden of proving that the evidence above was planted therein with the intent of interfering with the course of justice. The defense may claim that the evidence is not false or that the defendant was not trying to fool anyone in court in the first place. The evidence will be considered and he will either be found guilty or  not guilty by the judge or jury.

• Punishment : 

Should the person be convicted of the crimes charged, that person will face punishment as prescribed by the law. The range of the punishment depending on the part of the offense and the consequences it poses on the judicial process might vary from imprisonment to huge amounts of money or even both. For extreme cases where the evidence destruction amount leads to conviction of an innocent person or the ultimate abuse of justice, the punishment could be harsher than what is usually given.

4. Keeping an Eye on Evidence

• Overseeing Videotapes : 

In the face of worldwide integration with high-tech electronic data processing systems, such as electronic courts, all possible means of monitoring the usage of the provided information can be utilized as well. As an illustration, prior to placing the documents as evidence before the court, the authenticity of the digital files in question can be verified using either Blockchain technology or date stamping systems.

• Management of Audits and Switches : 

At the outset of the case, the court may consider the establishment of a system of checks or may consider putting in place measures to control the storage of evidence. Such means may also entails an account on the nay tampering for both physical and digital pieces of evidence that may take place during the transferring, storing and presenting.

5. Preventive Strategies and General Population Awareness

• Education and Training: 

All the stakeholders involved in the legal process, including legal practitioners, law enforcement officials and judges, should be taught the current techniques on the identification of false evidence to help reduce the chances of creating such evidence. Capacity building through regular training on forensic analysis, cyber forensic and most importantly, evidence tampering and its consequences will give the authorities the ability to preemptively address any forms of fraud before it compromises the legal processes.

• Public Awareness Campaigns: 

Increasing the public’s education concerning the effects of treating the bringing in of false evidence into the court as a non-issue is also a preventive measure. It is important for the legal community and the members of the public to keep in mind that the laying of false evidence attracts heavy penalties and that presents a threat to the justice system.

6. Collaboration by Agencies and Institutions

• Interaction with Regulating Agencies: 

The implementation of the provisions of Section 228 for prosecution, involves many institutions, as law enforcement agencies, courts, regulatory agencies and forensic units. For example, in matters where there is corporate dishonesty or financial misstatements, these regulatory authorities, namely the non-bank financial sector regulating bodies or the securities commissions, would help unearth misleading information.

• Global Cross-Border Relations: 

Whenever the crime or any evidence tampering requires one to go beyond the jurisdictions or out of the country, enforcement will also call for the participation of other states. In such matters, the countries that are signatories to a mutual legal assistance treaty (MLAT) and organizations which deal with international law enforcement such as Interpol help in the exchange of information to enable the arrest and prosecution of the offenders.

7. Postconviction Procedures 

• Resources and Corrections:

When it comes to evidence which has been established to be fake, appeals and revision of cases which result in conviction must be as well embedded in the legal system. Courts should be able to retry such cases if any doubt arises in regard to the material used in evidence. There are circumstances in which overzealous prosecutors and/or lawyers lead to the exoneration of individuals who were convicted on the basis of false evidence and compensation or other forms of reparation given to the victims of such injustice.

• Restoration and Restitution: 

In the event that injury occurs to a person due to falsified evidence, for example through wrongful incarceration or loss of income, measures for restoration might be sought. It may be ordered that any false evidence shall lead to compensation of the person deceived by such evidence.

Challenges in Implementation of Section 228 of BNS

Although Section 228 of the BNS aims to address the grave problem of creating false evidence in court and legal procedures, there are a number of obstacles to overcome before this provision may be successfully carried out.

1. Challenges in Establishing Evidence of Fabrication

• Complexity of Evidence Types: 

Digital recordings, audio-visual materials and other non-physical forms are frequently used as evidence in today’s court system. It can be technologically difficult to identify instances of falsification in digital documents (such as spreadsheets, emails or multimedia content) or electronic record alteration. Advanced software is increasingly being used to manipulate electronic evidence and it may be necessary to have specific skills and equipment to tell the difference between real and fake evidence.

• Lack of Forensic Expertise: 

Expertise in forensic analysis, digital forensics, handwriting analysis or other specialist subjects may be necessary to demonstrate that evidence has been falsified. Detection may be delayed by the absence of knowledge or technology in many legal systems, especially in poor jurisdictions, to properly review and validate evidence.

2. Burden of Proof 

• Determining Intent: 

Determining the purpose of the acts is one of the most challenging parts of prosecuting the manufacture of false evidence. In order to deceive the decision-maker, Section 228 demands that the person purposefully manufacture false evidence. It can be difficult to prove that a party’s actions were driven more by a purpose to deceive than by carelessness or mistake. In most circumstances, it can be incredibly tempting to make an assertion that is outside the realm of possible doubt about the person’s intention to tamper with a specific piece of evidence in order to produce some effect.

• Proving Cause : 

Even in situations where the deception is uncovered, its often challenging to prove that the tampered facts played a vital part in changing the outcome of a legal suit. In some cases, the false evidence might not have ultimately changed the judge ruling, making it more difficult to demonstrate that the false information was significant to the outcome of the case.

3. Case Volume and Complexity

• Large quantity of evidence: 

Large volumes of evidence may need to be reviewed in complicated legal matters, particularly those involving multinational corporations, multi-party court proceedings or international disputes. For investigators and legal experts, sifting through large amounts of paperwork, electronic data and other evidence to find any falsifications can be a difficult undertaking that delays or restricts enforcement.

• Overwhelming Legal Systems: 

In many jurisdictions, courts and law enforcement already deal with a significant backlog of cases and a heavy caseload. Investigating and prosecuting cases of fabricating evidence might not take precedence over more pressing issues, especially in overworked systems. Delays in identifying or resolving the problem of fabricated evidence may arise from this, allowing offenders avoid punishment.

4. Legal and Procedure Risks

• Uncertainty in Defining Fabrication: 

In certain situations, the meaning of “fabricating false evidence” as it appears in Section 228 may be unclear or open to different interpretations. Particularly in situations requiring complex or technological evidence, such financial records or digital forensics, it may be difficult to determine what exactly qualifies as evidence that is false. Legal ambiguity and the challenges in the effective apprehension of offenders may occur due to poorly defined policies.

• Defensive Legal Strategies : 

Accused individuals might argue that there was a tampering of evidence by a stranger who was not aware of their situation, that the alleged forgery was a mistake or it was an unintentional act. It becomes more challenging to demonstrate intent to produce false evidence when faced with such defenses, particularly if the defendant’s acts seem innocent or unintentional.

5. Access to Advanced Technology by Offenders

• Growing Technological Modernity: 

As technology develops, so do the techniques for creating false evidence. Falsified evidence is harder to spot thanks to tools like deepfake technology (for audio and video), AI-driven document generators and advanced photo modification software. Law enforcement organisations can find it difficult to keep up with the rapid advancements in technology as criminals acquire access to it, which could result in enforcement gaps.

• Encrypted or Hidden Evidence: 

In order to avoid detection, people who are creating evidence sometimes take measures to conceal or encrypt their activities. Investigators may not have easy access to digital evidence kept in cloud storage or encrypted files. Effective enforcement may be even harder if authorities need extra legal permission or special tools to acquire and review such records.

6. Collaboration between Whistleblowers and Witnesses

• Failure of Witnesses: 

Because they fear punishment or other negative personal effects, witnesses who are aware of evidence falsification may be afraid to come forward or testify. Investigations into fabrications may be severely hampered by this, particularly when the offender holds a position of authority or influence. Whistleblowers may occasionally be reluctant to come out with information about the crime because they are worried about their own safety, employment security or legal standing.

• Fear of Violence: 

Those who manufacture evidence may employ forceful techniques to discourage witnesses from assisting with inquiries. Witnesses may be unlikely to help law enforcement if they fear reprisals, which makes it more difficult to demonstrate that evidence has been faked.

7. Difficulties in Cross-Jurisdictional or International Cases

• Cross-Border Manufacturing:

Investigations may become more difficult in cases involving international conflicts since evidence fabrication may take place in several jurisdictions. Tracing the origin of manufactured evidence or prosecuting criminals in cases spanning various nations can be challenging due to disparate legal systems, standards of proof and investigation resources. Attempts to combat the crime may be further hampered by a lack of international collaboration or legal agreements.

• Problems with Coordination: 

Different laws may not focus on such violations or may define what constitutes manufactured evidence differently. Offenders who move between jurisdictions with stricter enforcement may dodge accountability due to a lack of international enforcement cooperation.

8. Resource and Financial Restraints

• Cost of Investigation: 

It can be expensive to look into the manufacture of false evidence, particularly in complicated or well-known cases. Expert witnesses, specialized forensic equipment and the labour needed for in-depth investigations can be unaffordable, especially in developing or resource-constrained court systems. It may be more difficult for authorities to reach their full investigative and punitive potential in cases of evidence fabrication due to lack of the necessary resources.

• Insufficient Institutional Capability : 

Many countries may not have the institutional capacity and the supporting systems to address the issue of evidence fabrication. For example, the creation and use of falsified evidence may be difficult to investigate or prosecute owing to the absence of specialist forensic units or inadequate training of law investigators and prosecutors.

Preventive Measures of Fabricating false evidence

1. Strengthening Procedures for Checking Evidence

Strengthening the judicial system’s verification procedures is one of the main strategies to stop evidence falsification. To authenticate documents, digital data and other types of evidence, courts and law enforcement organizations are depending more and more on forensic specialists and skilled individuals. The judicial system collapses the odds of presenting evidence in court and avoids the danger of falsified case repositioning through strict cross-examination and verification procedures. That process prevents any distortion of information that might affect the verdict, thereby upholding the integrity of the evidence.

2. Digital Forensics Function in Fraud Detection

Digital forensics is now a vital technique for identifying tampering due to the increasing amount of digital data. To verify authenticity, digital forensic specialists examine emails, electronic documents, CCTV footage and even mobile data. Fake digital evidence is difficult to overlook since forensic methods and specific software can identify even the smallest change in digital files. The existence of digital forensic specialists acts as a protection, maintaining the integrity of digital evidence in court as Section 228 covers digital fabrications. 

3. Seminars for Legal Education and Awareness

The prevention of evidence fabrication is greatly aided by legal education. Law enforcement, legal experts and the general public are educated on the serious repercussions of tampering with evidence through workshops and awareness campaigns. People are less inclined to fabricate evidence if they are aware of the legal consequences of doing so under Section 228. By encouraging accountability and promoting the value of integrity in the legal system, legal education helps to lower the number of cases of evidence tampering.

4. Promoting Accountability and Transparency

To stop the fabrication of evidence, court proceedings must be transparent. In order for greater examination, courts frequently demand that all parties present their evidence up front. The opposition and the court can evaluate the evidence in-depth because to this transparency, which also makes it possible to identify false aspects early on. Because parties are aware that all submitted materials are subject to rigorous review, the legal system discourages attempts to falsify evidence by promoting accountability. 

5. Using Technology to Authenticate Documents

Many legal systems, like India’s, use technology like blockchain and electronic stamps for document authentication in order to stop falsified records or papers from reaching the courts. Particularly with blockchain technology, safe record-keeping is made possible, almost eliminating the possibility of document manipulation. These technologies shield the legal system against fake paper and electronic records by offering digital seals and verified timestamps that can confirm a document’s legitimacy. These developments support the goal of Section 228 by guaranteeing that only authenticated materials influence case results. 

6. Strong Legal Impacts as a Discouragement

Evidence fabrication is strongly discouraged by the legal repercussions described in Section 228. People are deterred from attempting to falsify evidence by the prospect of severe fines and jail time. The courts shows that tampering with evidence is unlawful and that any activities that threaten the fairness of legal rules will have grave consequences and very heavy penalties will be imposed. This effect is important in ensuring that individuals do not fabricate evidence in an effort to compromise their liberty or good name.

The Real World Implications of Section 228 

False evidence can hamper justice by manipulating the court process or by leading to false or unnecessary allegations or judgments. By ensuring that only correct and verified evidence is used, Section 228 aids in the maintenance of the trial’s integrity. This protection becomes indispensable in the sense that there are serious crimes for which a verdict is crucial. Narrowly looking at it, Section 228 also performs a similar function as it reassures that the courts in entire India are committed to the cause of justice and truth.

Case Studies Based on Section 228 of BNS

1. State of Uttar Pradesh vs Mahesh Tiwari, 2017

The court examined a case in Mahesh Tiwari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2017) in which the accused was accused of fabricating evidence to link another person to an illegal act. Among the falsified evidence were manipulated documents that contained false information about the case. Mahesh Tiwari was found guilty of fabricating evidence by the court, confirming that such behavior is a clear violation of Section 228 principles. The importance of shielding people from false allegations based on falsified evidence was made clear by this case.

2. State of Maharashtra vs Rajesh Sharma, 2015

The accused in State of Maharashtra vs. Rajesh Sharma (2015) was charged with digitally modifying emails in a property dispute in order to fabricate a story. The court determined that because digital evidence falsification can be used to deceive legal proceedings, it is covered under Section 228. This case made it clear that evidence—digital or physical—must be kept intact and that tampering with it can have major legal ramifications. 

3. State of Haryana v. Kiran Bala, 2019

The defendant in Kiran Bala vs. State of Haryana (2019) was charged with submitting false financial data in order to sway a judge’s judgment over a divorce settlement. In an attempt to obtain a favorable decision, the falsified evidence exaggerated financial assets. The court’s decision against Kiran Bala made it clear that Section 228 sanctions apply even to financial manipulations in evidence. This case demonstrated that falsifying facts in court is never acceptable due to financial or personal reasons. 

4. Arvind Gupta vs Sunita Verma, 2020

To show his rights over claimed assets, the accused in Sunita Verma vs. Arvind Gupta (2020) produced fraudulent signatures on property ownership documents. Arvind Gupta was found guilty by the court of falsifying evidence in order to mislead judicial authorities. The decision protected the judicial system against false ownership claims by reminding everyone that faked documents in court cases are strictly prohibited by Section 228. 

5. State of Tamil Nadu vs Vikas Rathi, 2018

The accused changed DNA samples in the State of Tamil Nadu vs. Vikas Rathi (2018) case in order to deflect suspicion from himself, resulting in corrupted forensic evidence. Because Vikas Rathi’s conduct endangered the integrity of the legal system, the court held him responsible for altering forensic records. This case reinforced the applicability of Section 228 to different types of tampered evidence and highlighted the crucial significance that unaltered forensic evidence plays in legal proceedings. 

Examples Based on Section 228 of BNS

1. Altering Accounting Information

A business owner actively falsifies the organization’s bookkeeping records by enhancing revenue and concealing costs. The business owner makes these alterations for the purpose of using such falsified documents as evidence in a current dispute concerning unpaid debts. The business owner seeks to persuade the judge or arbitrator in charge of the case with the modified financial documents, that the company in question is actually more solvent than it is in reality, in order to win the case.

• Analysis: In this case, the business owner does modify records but with the intention of misrepresenting something to the court which he/she is not meant to do.

2. Inventing a Witness Statement

An individual participant in a car crash opts to forge a statement of a witness. They go on to write a false statement accusing the other driver of speeding while knowing fully well that there was no such behaviour. The statement is later on given to the court as part of the evidence to support a claim for personal injury claiming that the other driver was negligent.

• Analysis: The individual is making up false evidence in the form of a passed witness statement to alter the verdict of the court.

3. Falsifying Electronic Correspondences 

An employee who is on dispute with the organization creates an email conversations between him and his manager where they create several emails from the manager that they altered to show how the manager endorsed certain actions. The employee intends to use the created false emails during the arbitration hearing as a way of defending themselves against the manager’s accusations.

• Analysis: The employee is creating unfounded electronic material to lure the arbitrator into their fabricated sides and outcome of the confrontation.

4. Manipulating CCTV Footage

One of the participants of the criminal proceedings makes a plan to edit the records from the cameras in order to cut out of the video images showing him with the crime scene. After this, during the trial, he file the mutilated video as part of the proceedings, in the hope that it will help the jury to conclude that he had been nowhere close to the crime scene that is why he cannot be found guilty.

• Analysis: The individual is constructing evidence out of thin air by editing out portions of video footage for purposes of misrepresentation within the court system.

5. Fraudulent Documents in a Medical Negligence Lawsuit

A doctor who is being sued for malpractice creates false medical histories in order to justify the treatment of a patient’s complaints even when it never happened. These false records are also presented as proof in the case in order to exonerate the physician from the malpractice accusations.

• Analysis: The physician in this instance is creating falsified information by modifying medical records in order to obstruct justice.

6. Inventing an Alibi in a Criminal Investigation

A defendant in a criminal prosecution introduces an exculpatory statement allegedly made by an alibi witness. The alibi is granted by a friend of the defendant, who conveniently states that they were with the defendant at the time of the criminal offence. The defendant hopes that this will convince the judge or jury that the defendant was not present at the crime scene, hence leading to their acquittal.

• Analysis: The defendant is using false evidence by way of a bogus provision of an alibi in order to sway the outcome of the court.

7. Forging documents to Support False Claims 

In a Property Related Issue, a person makes up documents that suggest that there was a deal between him and a party who has no interest in the house and thereby creates hearsay evidence of ownership of the property in issue. These false documents are then used in the court to mislead the judge into making a decision favorable to the individual.

• Analysis: Contracts are being submitted to the court that have not been executed in order to create an illusion in the ongoing property suit.

8. Altering bank Statements as Evidence in a Divorce Case 

One of the spouses in Divorce proceedings makes alterations on the bank accounts statements of the other in order to conceal assets and give a lower value of the opposition’s estate. Such altered statements are intended to be presented in court for the judge to believe that the individual’s holdings are lower than they actually are and thus award them a better settlement.

• Analysis: The party is fabricating false evidence by tampering with financial documents in order to distort truth before the court in the divorce case.

Conclusion

The act of creating fabricated evidence is deemed a serious crime and compromises the very fabric of the justice system. It is important to comprehend what it means for everyone, be it a participant in the proceedings or just a witness. Objective and correct representation of facts is not only a legal duty but also a moral responsibility towards the administration of justice and the belief of the general public towards the law. 

Such are the complexities that are presented in the legal field, but let us remain principled and work towards the attainment of the most important value that is the truth.

Frequently Asked Questions on Section 228 of BNS

Q1. What is Section 228 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)?

Ans1. Section 228 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) deals with the offense of fabricating false evidence. It criminalizes the act of creating misleading circumstances, making false entries in books or records or producing false documents with the intention of using them as evidence in legal proceedings. The goal is to mislead the decision-makers, such as judges, juries or arbitrators and cause them to form erroneous opinions that could impact the outcome of a case.

Q2. What actions are considered as fabricating false evidence under Section 228?

Ans2. Actions such as creating false circumstances, making false entries in books or digital records and producing fraudulent documents or statements to be presented as evidence in court are considered fabricating false evidence.

Q3. Can false entries in electronic records also be considered as fabricating evidence under Section 228?

Ans3. Yes, false entries in electronic records, such as emails or digital files, are specifically covered under Section 228.

Q4. What are some examples of fabricating false evidence under Section 228?

Ans4. Here are some examples provided in the section:

• Example 1: A person (A) places jewels in a box belonging to another person (Z) with the intent to make it appear that Z has stolen the jewels, thereby falsely implicating Z in a theft.
• Example 2: A shopkeeper (A) makes a false entry in their shopbook with the intention of using it as evidence in court.
• Example 3: A person (A) writes a fake letter in imitation of another person’s handwriting to falsely implicate them in a criminal conspiracy, knowing that the police are likely to find it.

Q5. What is the purpose of fabricating false evidence?

Ans5. The primary purpose of fabricating false evidence is to deceive those involved in the legal process such as judges into forming incorrect opinions on material facts, thereby influencing the outcome of a case.

Q6. What are the consequences of fabricating false evidence?

Ans6.Consequences include criminal prosecution, civil liability for damages, damage to reputation and disruption of the justice process, leading to wrongful convictions or acquittals.

Q7. What is the significance of punishment for fabricating false evidence?

Ans7. Section 229 of BNS provides for Punishment for Section 228 of BNS. It states that for fabricating false evidence, one can be punished with up to seven years in prison and may also have to pay a fine of up to ten thousand rupees.

Q8. What challenges does modern technology pose in detecting fabricated evidence?

Ans8. Technological advances, especially in digital media, make it easier to alter or fabricate evidence. Detecting such forgeries requires advanced tools and expertise.

Q9. How does fabricating false evidence affect the justice system?

Ans9. It undermines the fairness of legal proceedings, causes wrongful judgments and erodes public trust in the judicial system.

Q10. Why is Section 228 important today?

Ans10. In today’s digital and globalised world, fabricating evidence has become easier and more impactful. Section 228 addresses these challenges by targeting both physical and electronic evidence, ensuring the integrity of legal proceedings.

Q11. What is the mechanism for enforcing laws against the fabrication of false evidence under Section 228 of the BNS?

Ans11. Enforcement begins with investigations triggered by complaints, whistleblower reports or discrepancies noticed during legal proceedings. Law enforcement agencies, including cyber crime and units that investigate fraud look at documents and records, and sometimes rely on gadgets to spot falsified evidence. In some instances, there is need for the assistance of other professionals such as forensic specialists and document analysts who may help with identification of the unearthed evidence.

Q12. What is the process of inquiry in cases of falsified evidence?

Ans12. The investigations usually comprise of exploring the evidence, both physical and electronic, getting testimonies from interviews and using forensic technology to identify altered or falsified documents. Specialized experts in digital forensics, handwriting analysis and financial fraud may be consulted for complex evidence types.

Q13. What role does the judiciary play in detecting and preventing false evidence?

Ans13. Judges exercise caution when evaluating evidence. If there’s suspicion of tampering, they may order further examination or request expert opinions. Legal representatives who knowingly present false evidence may also face professional sanctions, including suspension or disbarment.

Q14. What happens after a false evidence case is investigated?

Ans14. Once a case is investigated, the state prosecutor decides whether to press charges. During court proceedings, the prosecution must prove that the evidence was fabricated with intent to deceive. If the accused is found guilty, they may face imprisonment, fines or both, depending on the severity of the offense.

Q15. How is fabricated evidence monitored and prevented?

Ans15. Evidence is often monitored using technology such as blockchain or timestamping systems to ensure authenticity. Courts may set up audits or protocols to track the storage and handling of evidence. Public awareness campaigns and regular training for legal practitioners help prevent the submission of false evidence.

Q16. What is the role of international cooperation in tackling fabricated evidence?

Ans16. In cases involving cross-border evidence fabrication, international organisations such as Interpol and mutual legal assistance treaties (MLATs) facilitate the exchange of information and coordination for investigation and prosecution.

Q17. What are the challenges in enforcing Section 228 of the BNS?

Ans17. Challenges include the complexity of digital evidence, lack of forensic expertise, difficulty in proving intent to deceive and the high volume of cases. There may also be legal ambiguities in defining “fabrication” and difficulties in handling evidence across different jurisdictions.

Q18. Can false evidence be detected in digital forms?

Ans18. Yes, but it can be challenging. With advances in technology, digital evidence such as emails, videos and documents can be easily manipulated. Specialized forensic tools and experts are often required to identify fraudulent digital content.

Q19. How are false claims like forged witness statements handled?

Ans19. Forgeries, such as fabricated witness statements or altered video footage, are considered serious offenses under Section 228. When discovered, they can lead to penalties such as imprisonment, fines and the dismissal of the false evidence, with potential consequences for the person who submitted it.

Q20. What happens if a conviction is based on fabricated evidence?

Ans20. If it is later discovered that a person was wrongfully convicted due to false evidence, the case may be revisited. Courts can grant appeals and victims of wrongful convictions may be entitled to compensation or restitution for the harm caused.

Q21. How does public awareness affect the enforcement of false evidence laws?

Ans21. Public awareness campaigns help educate the public and legal community about the dangers of falsifying evidence and the severe consequences it can have on the justice system. When individuals understand the risks, they are less likely to engage in such fraudulent activities.

Q22. Can the defense argue that evidence fabrication was accidental?

Ans22. Yes, the defense may argue that any falsification of evidence was unintentional. However, to convict under Section 228, it must be proven that the individual intentionally fabricated evidence to deceive the court or other authorities.

Q23. What kinds of evidence are commonly fabricated?

Ans23. Common examples include altering financial documents, forging witness statements, creating fake alibis or manipulating video footage. In some cases, people also forge contracts or modify medical records to support fraudulent claims.

Q24. What punishment can be given for fabricating false evidence?

Ans24. The range of penalties may include a prison sentence or an expensive fine, depending on the degree of the offense committed and the extent of disruption it caused to the administration of justice. In aggravating circumstances, for example when the faking of evidence leads to miscarriages of justice, such penalties may be greater.

Q25.  How do witnesses and whistleblowers contribute to detecting fabricated evidence?

Ans25. Witnesses and whistleblowers can provide critical information, but they may fear retaliation. Legal protections for whistleblowers and anonymous reporting can encourage more people to come forward with information about evidence tampering.

Q26. Are there any notable cases related to Section 228?

Ans26. Yes, cases like Mahesh Tiwari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh have addressed issues of evidence fabrication, highlighting the application of Section 228 in judicial proceedings.