An Analysis of Section 195A of the Indian Penal Code

An Analysis of Section 195A of the Indian Penal Code: Threatening Witnesses and the Procedural Labyrinth

Introduction

Section 195A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) addresses the grave issue of threatening or inducing any person to give false evidence. This provision plays a critical role in upholding the sanctity of the judicial process by seeking to protect witnesses from coercion and thereby ensuring the integrity of evidence presented before courts. The efficacy of the criminal justice system hinges significantly on the willingness and ability of witnesses to testify truthfully without fear of reprisal. As observed by the Supreme Court in Mahender Chawla And Others v. Union Of India And Others, the absence of a robust witness protection framework can lead to witnesses turning hostile, thereby undermining the rule of law.[3] Section 195A IPC is a penal measure aimed at deterring such conduct. This article delves into the substantive elements of Section 195A IPC, its procedural implications under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), particularly Section 195A CrPC, and analyzes its interpretation through various judicial pronouncements.

Genesis and Object of Section 195A IPC

The introduction of Section 195A into the IPC was a legislative response to the pervasive problem of witness intimidation, a phenomenon that severely compromises the administration of justice. The Law Commission of India, in several reports, had highlighted the need for specific provisions to tackle threats to witnesses. The overarching object of Section 195A IPC is to criminalize the act of threatening another person with the intent to influence their testimony, specifically to compel them to give false evidence. This provision seeks to create a deterrent against subverting the course of justice by ensuring that those who attempt to pollute the evidentiary stream through intimidation face penal consequences. The Supreme Court's mandate for a comprehensive Witness Protection Scheme in Mahender Chawla[3] underscores the systemic importance of protecting witnesses, and Section 195A IPC serves as a crucial component of this protective legal architecture.

Key Ingredients of Section 195A IPC

Section 195A IPC stipulates: "Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause that person to give false evidence shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both; and if innocent person is convicted and sentenced in consequence of such false evidence, with death or seven years or more, the person who threatens shall be punished with the same punishment and sentence in the same manner and to the same extent such innocent person is punished and sentenced."

The essential ingredients of this offence are:

  • Threat of Injury: The accused must threaten another person. The threat can be of injury to their person, reputation, or property, or to the person or reputation of anyone in whom the threatened person is interested.
  • Intent to Cause Giving of False Evidence: The threat must be administered with the specific intent to cause the person to give "false evidence." This is a crucial element. As clarified in Tasleema v. State (Delhi High Court, 2009), the expressions "giving false evidence" and "fabricating false evidence" are explained in Sections 191 and 192 IPC.[7] Therefore, the term "false evidence" in Section 195A IPC must be understood in the context of Section 191 IPC, which defines giving false evidence as making a statement that is false and which the person either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth.[10]
  • Distinction from Mere Coercion to Withdraw Complaint: Several High Courts have emphasized that a mere threat to withdraw a complaint or settle a dispute does not automatically attract Section 195A IPC. The core requirement is the intent to make the witness give false evidence before a court of law. In Seetha Lakshmi v. The Deputy And Assistant Sup (Madras High Court, 2024), it was held that a threat to a person to withdraw an FIR would not attract Section 195A IPC if there is no intent that the informant gives false evidence before the Court.[10] A similar view was expressed in Kuldeep Singh Tomar v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh (Madhya Pradesh High Court, 2023), where an attempt to pressurize the complainant to compromise was deemed insufficient to constitute an offence under Section 195A IPC, as the intent to adduce false evidence before the court was missing.[12] The Madras High Court in JAMES v. STATE REPRESENTBY (Madras High Court, 2025) also highlighted that an allegation of threatening someone not to give evidence, as opposed to threatening them to give false evidence, may not satisfy the ingredients of Section 195A IPC.[18]
  • Punishment: The section prescribes a punishment of imprisonment up to seven years, or a fine, or both. More significantly, it contains an aggravated punishment clause: if an innocent person is convicted and sentenced (to death or imprisonment of seven years or more) as a consequence of such false evidence (elicited through threats), the threatener shall be punished with the same punishment and sentence as the innocent person.

Procedural Framework: Section 195A CrPC and its Interplay with Sections 195 and 340 CrPC

The procedural mechanism for dealing with an offence under Section 195A IPC is primarily governed by Section 195A of the CrPC. Section 195A CrPC states: "Procedure for witnesses in case of threatening, etc.—A witness or any other person may file a complaint in relation to an offence under section 195A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860)."

This provision raises a significant debate regarding the mode of initiation of proceedings: whether an FIR can be registered by the police, or if a complaint to a Magistrate is the sole prescribed route.

  • FIR v. Complaint to Magistrate:

    A strong line of judicial thought indicates that prosecution for an offence under Section 195A IPC should be initiated by way of a complaint to a Magistrate, not through an FIR. The Gauhati High Court in NEPUT RAJIYUNG@ ACTION DIMASA@ MIPUT RAJIYUNG v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR (2022) held that a prosecution under Section 195A IPC can be launched by a witness or any other person only by way of a complaint before a Magistrate, and not by way of an FIR.[16] The court reasoned that Section 195A CrPC explicitly provides for "a complaint" as the remedy. This view was echoed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in RAMKAPIL MEHRA v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (2023), which found merit in the contention that prosecution launched via an FIR for an offence under Section 195A IPC was prima facie impermissible.[19] The Kerala High Court in SAIFDEEN.Y, v. STATE OF KERALA (2025), drawing parallels from existing CrPC provisions while discussing the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, referred to its earlier decisions (Radhakrishnan P v. State of Kerala and Suni @ Sunil v. State of Kerala) to assert that a police officer cannot directly register a crime for an offence under Section 195A IPC and that the procedure under Section 195 CrPC read with Section 340 CrPC must be followed, implying a court-driven complaint process or a direct complaint by the witness to the Magistrate.[20]

    However, a somewhat different perspective was noted in Gurunathagouda v. State Of Karnataka (Karnataka High Court, 2019), where it was argued that Section 195A CrPC provides an added remedy and does not declare Section 195A IPC as non-cognizable, implying that the police machinery to register an FIR for a cognizable offence might still be available.[23] This suggests a potential area of differing judicial interpretation that may require authoritative clarification by the Supreme Court.

  • Interplay with Section 195(1)(b)(i) and Section 340 CrPC:

    Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC bars a court from taking cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 193 to 196 IPC (among others, which pertain to false evidence and fabrication of false evidence) when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, except on the complaint in writing of that Court or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. As Section 195A IPC deals with threatening to give "false evidence," its connection to this cluster of offences is pertinent. The Delhi High Court in Tasleema noted that Section 195A IPC relates to threatening any person to give false evidence.[7]

    The procedure for a court to make a complaint is detailed in Section 340 CrPC. This typically involves the court conducting a preliminary inquiry and then, if satisfied, making a complaint to a Magistrate. The Supreme Court in Narendra Kumar Srivastava v. State Of Bihar And Others (2019) clarified that Section 195 CrPC lays down the rule for taking cognizance, while Section 340 CrPC provides the procedure for the court desiring to initiate prosecution.[5]

    The Gauhati High Court in Neput Rajiyung distinguished two scenarios: (1) When a court wishes to launch a prosecution for an offence under Section 195A IPC (presumably when the threat relates to ongoing proceedings before it), adherence to Section 340 CrPC might be necessary. (2) When an individual (witness or other person) opts to prosecute, they can file a complaint under Section 195A CrPC.[16] This dual pathway seems to reconcile the provisions. The bar under Section 195 CrPC, as explained in B.S Khatri v. State Of Maharashtra And Another (Bombay High Court, 2003), is on Magisterial courts taking cognizance without adhering to the specified procedure.[9] The principle from Perumal v. Janaki (2014), that procedural bars should not be interpreted to render victims remediless, also provides a guiding philosophy.[1]

Judicial Interpretation and Application

Courts have applied Section 195A IPC in various factual matrices, often focusing on whether the specific intent to procure "false evidence" for use in judicial proceedings is established.

  • In SALIB @ SHALU @ SALIM v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (2023), Section 195A IPC was one of the sections under which the petitioner's name was added during investigation.[15]
  • In Ganesh Adhikari v. State Of West Bengal & Anr. (2014), the petitioner was charge-sheeted under Section 195A IPC, alleging false implication due to political grudge.[17]
  • The case of Rais Ahmad v. State Of Uttar Pradesh (2017) involved a complaint seeking registration of a case under Sections 195A and 506 IPC.[21]
  • In M.N. Giri v. State of Kerala (2013), allegations of threats to witnesses in a murder case invoked discussion on Section 195A IPC, where the Magistrate noted that the alleged threat was against persons who gave false evidence against a political party, questioning the applicability of the section.[22]

The judiciary has been careful to distinguish Section 195A IPC from general criminal intimidation under Sections 503 and 506 IPC. While both involve threats, Section 195A IPC requires the specific intent related to giving false evidence in a judicial context. Cases like Kamleshkumar Dharmabhai Vasava v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT (2022)[11] and Biresh Kumar Singh v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND (2024)[13], which discuss the ingredients of criminal intimidation, help delineate this distinction.

The broader context of witness protection, as highlighted in Mahender Chawla[3] and the problematic instances of witness tampering seen in cases like R.K Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court (2009)[4], provide the rationale for stringent application of laws like Section 195A IPC.

Challenges and Considerations

Several challenges and considerations arise in the application of Section 195A IPC:

  • Proving Specific Intent: Establishing the specific "intent to cause that person to give false evidence" can be challenging, as it requires delving into the accused's state of mind.
  • Procedural Ambiguity: The FIR versus complaint debate, while leaning towards the complaint route for individual actions, still presents a grey area that could benefit from definitive Supreme Court clarification to ensure uniformity across jurisdictions.
  • Misuse of the Provision: As with many penal provisions, there is a potential for misuse, such as false implication out of personal or political vendetta, a concern raised in Ganesh Adhikari.[17]
  • Effectiveness of Aggravated Punishment: The efficacy of the aggravated punishment clause (linking the threatener's punishment to that of an innocent person wrongly convicted) depends on the successful prosecution of both the false evidence case and the subsequent threat case, which can be a complex and lengthy process.

Conclusion

Section 195A of the Indian Penal Code is a vital legislative tool designed to protect the integrity of the judicial process by criminalizing threats aimed at coercing witnesses into giving false evidence. Its unique punishment structure, particularly the aggravated penalty, underscores the seriousness with which the legislature views such conduct. Judicial interpretations have largely focused on the necessity of proving the specific intent to procure "false evidence" as defined under Section 191 IPC, distinguishing it from general threats or coercion to withdraw complaints.

The procedural pathway for initiating prosecution under Section 195A IPC, particularly through Section 195A CrPC, predominantly points towards filing a complaint before a Magistrate, although some ambiguity regarding the permissibility of an FIR persists. Clarity on this front would enhance consistent application. Ultimately, Section 195A IPC, when robustly and fairly enforced, complements broader witness protection measures, striving to ensure that truth prevails in the courts and that the edifice of justice is not undermined by fear or intimidation.

References

  1. Perumal v. Janaki . (2014 SCC 5 377, Supreme Court Of India, 2014)
  2. Sanjiv Kumar v. State Of Haryana . (2010 SCC ONLINE P&H 5818, Punjab & Haryana High Court, 2010)
  3. Mahender Chawla And Others v. Union Of India And Others (2018 SCC ONLINE SC 2679, Supreme Court Of India, 2018)
  4. R.K Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court . (2009 SCC 8 106, Supreme Court Of India, 2009)
  5. Narendra Kumar Srivastava v. State Of Bihar And Others (Supreme Court Of India, 2019)
  6. K.A Kuttiah v. The Federal Bank Ltd. & Others (Kerala High Court, 2006)
  7. Tasleema v. State (Delhi High Court, 2009)
  8. Darbari Mandar v. Jagoo Lal (Calcutta High Court, 1895)
  9. B.S Khatri v. State Of Maharashtra And Another . (Bombay High Court, 2003)
  10. Seetha Lakshmi v. The Deputy And Assistant Sup (Madras High Court, 2024)
  11. KAMLESHKUMAR DHARMABHAI VASAVA v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT (Gujarat High Court, 2022)
  12. Kuldeep Singh Tomar v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh (Madhya Pradesh High Court, 2023)
  13. BIRESH KUMAR SINGH v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND (Jharkhand High Court, 2024)
  14. K. Valsala And Others v. State Of Kerala Represented By Public Prosecutor And Others (Kerala High Court, 2020)
  15. SALIB @ SHALU @ SALIM v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (2023 SCC ONLINE SC 947, Supreme Court Of India, 2023)
  16. NEPUT RAJIYUNG@ ACTION DIMASA@ MIPUT RAJIYUNG v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR (2022 SCC ONLINE GAU 1562, Gauhati High Court, 2022)
  17. Ganesh Adhikari v. State Of West Bengal & Anr. (2014 SCC ONLINE CAL 20120, Calcutta High Court, 2014)
  18. JAMES v. STATE REPRESENTBY (Madras High Court, 2025)
  19. RAMKAPIL MEHRA v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (Madhya Pradesh High Court, 2023)
  20. SAIFDEEN.Y, v. STATE OF KERALA (Kerala High Court, 2025)
  21. Rais Ahmad v. State Of Uttar Pradesh (Allahabad High Court, 2017)
  22. M.N. Giri v. State of Kerala (Kerala High Court, 2013)
  23. Gurunathagouda v. State Of Karnataka (Karnataka High Court, 2019)