📘 Section 134 – Public Servant Preparing False Record to Save a Person from Punishment of Capital Offence or Life Imprisonment under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

Category: Criminal Law
Language: English
Word Count: ~3000
Published by: Legal India 999

🧭 Introduction

In the administration of criminal justice, truthful record-keeping is not merely procedural—it is the bedrock of a fair trial. When a public servant, especially one entrusted with preparing crucial evidence or legal documentation, falsifies such records, the entire justice system is endangered. Section 134 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 recognizes the gravity of such misconduct—particularly when it protects an accused from punishment for capital offences (like murder, terrorism, etc.) or life imprisonment.

This section is one of the strictest provisions in the BNS, acknowledging the severe implications of shielding criminals involved in the most heinous crimes through fabricated records.

📜 Text of Section 134 – Public Servant Framing False Record to Save from Capital Punishment

"Whoever, being a public servant and being as such public servant charged with the preparation of any record or other writing, frames that record or writing in a manner which he knows to be incorrect, with the intention to save, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save, any person from punishment of death or imprisonment for life, shall be punished..."

⚖️ Legal Ingredients of Section 134

To invoke Section 134, the following elements must be established:

1. The Accused is a Public Servant

The person must be legally recognized as a public servant under Indian law.

2. Charged with Preparing Official Records

The individual must be responsible for preparing records such as police reports, court documents, forensic findings, jail records, etc.

3. Knowingly Makes a False Record

There must be evidence of deliberate falsification—not clerical error or negligence.

4. Intent to Save Person from Capital Punishment or Life Imprisonment

The false record must be aimed at helping someone escape punishment for an offence that would normally attract the death penalty or life imprisonment.

🎯 Purpose of Section 134

The objective of Section 134 is to:

Deter public servants from assisting high-level criminals.
Protect the sanctity of official records, especially in capital cases.
Ensure public trust in institutions like police, courts, medical boards, and forensic labs.
Prevent obstruction of justice at the highest level.

🔍 Examples of Covered Offences

This provision applies in cases where a public servant, for example:

Alters forensic reports in a murder case to suggest accidental death.
Issues a fake alibi record to protect someone accused of terrorism or rape.
Falsifies custody or arrest records to suggest the accused was not present at the crime scene.
Manipulates postmortem reports in homicide or dowry death cases.

🧾 Punishment Prescribed

Section 134 lays down the following punishment:

Rigorous imprisonment up to ten years, or
Imprisonment for life, and
Fine

This is a non-bailable, non-compoundable, and cognizable offence, reflecting the gravity of tampering in capital or life imprisonment cases.

🏛️ Comparison with IPC

Element	IPC	BNS
Section Number	218 (read with 219/220)	134
Maximum Punishment	7 years or life	Life imprisonment
Focus	General false records	False records in capital cases

While IPC had no exclusive section for this, the BNS specifically distinguishes between general record falsification (Section 133) and falsification in capital offences (Section 134), assigning more serious punishment to the latter.

🧠 Legal Scenarios

Scenario 1: Fake Postmortem in a Murder Case

A government-appointed doctor deliberately records the cause of death as “natural” when in fact the victim had fatal stab wounds.

Scenario 2: Police Manipulate Evidence in Rape-Murder Case

Investigating officers omit or destroy DNA evidence to protect a politically connected suspect from death sentence.

Scenario 3: Public Prosecutor Suppresses Material Evidence

A government prosecutor deliberately does not file CCTV footage proving guilt of an accused facing a capital trial.

⚖️ Key Court Judgments

🔹 State of Punjab v. Ram Singh (AIR 1992 SC 2188)

The Supreme Court held that tampering with official records in murder trials directly amounts to obstruction of justice and may be tried under harsher penal provisions.

🔹 Vinay Sharma v. State (Nirbhaya Case)

Though Section 134 didn’t exist at the time, the trial court warned the police that any false documentation aiding the convicts would invite criminal prosecution under relevant IPC laws. Today, such conduct would be dealt with directly under BNS Section 134.

🧪 Proving Offence Under Section 134

To prove a charge under Section 134, the prosecution must establish:

The accused was a public servant.
The accused was responsible for preparing or maintaining the record.
The record was intentionally false.
There was clear intention to save someone from capital punishment or life imprisonment.
There is a nexus between the false record and the case outcome.

🛡️ Safeguards for the Accused

Section 134 provides strong deterrents but also embeds procedural fairness:

Prior Sanction Requirement: Courts cannot take cognizance unless the government approves prosecution (to protect from frivolous charges).
Right to Appeal: As with all serious offences, accused persons retain full rights to legal defense and appeal.

🌍 Global Perspective

Many legal systems around the world have equivalent laws:

Country	Provision
USA	18 U.S. Code § 1519 – Falsifying Records in Federal Investigations
UK	Perverting the Course of Justice (Life Sentence Possible)
Canada	Obstruction of Justice under Criminal Code
Australia	Crimes Act 1914 – Fabrication of Evidence (up to 10 years)

India, with BNS 134, now aligns with international standards of justice integrity, especially in handling grave criminal cases.

📌 Difference Between Section 133 and 134

Feature	Section 133	Section 134
Offence Type	False record to save anyone from punishment	False record to save from capital punishment/life imprisonment
Maximum Punishment	7 years	Life imprisonment or 10 years
Severity	Moderate	Very high
Applicability	All crimes	Only grave offences like murder, terrorism, rape

🧾 Sample FIR Scenario under Section 134

FIR Contents:

Complainant: District Collector
Accused: Medical Officer at Govt Hospital
Offence: Issuing false postmortem report in custodial death case
Sections Invoked: BNS Section 134, Section 228 (causing disappearance of evidence)

This shows how Section 134 can be invoked along with other BNS provisions for compound offences.

👥 Public Trust and Institutional Integrity

The inclusion of Section 134 serves broader democratic objectives:

Makes law enforcement and judiciary more accountable.
Prevents collusion between public servants and criminals.
Reinforces the principle that justice must not be obstructed from within.
Ensures public institutions serve the public, not power.

📚 Summary Table

Feature	Description
Section Number	134
Applicable To	Public servants
Offence	Making false record to save someone from capital punishment or life sentence
Punishment	Up to life imprisonment or 10 years + fine
Cognizable?	Yes
Bailable?	No
Sanction Required?	Yes (under Section 219 of BNS)

🧭 Conclusion

Section 134 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 sends a strong message: tampering with official records in cases involving death or life imprisonment is a crime of the highest order. The justice system must be shielded not only from external threats but also from internal sabotage.

Public servants hold power—Section 134 ensures that this power is used responsibly, ethically, and in accordance with the law. It upholds the principle that no one, however powerful or connected, should be allowed to escape justice because someone on the inside covered their tracks.

📝 Coming Up Next

➡️ Section 135 – Commitment for Trial or Confinement by a Person Having Authority Who Knows That He is Acting Contrary to Law

Legal With Anurag

Search This Blog