📘 Section 137 – Public Servant Framing Incorrect Record to Save a Person from Punishment

Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

🧭 Introduction

The justice system relies heavily on the truthfulness of public records, especially those created by public servants like police officers, court clerks, revenue officials, and others. Any deliberate falsification of these documents can severely distort justice, particularly when it's done to protect someone from legal punishment.

Section 137 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, targets this very misuse of power. It penalizes public servants who knowingly prepare or frame incorrect records with the intention to save a person from punishment, directly attacking the root of corruption in documentation.

📜 Bare Text of Section 137

"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 intent to cause or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, loss or injury to the public or to any person, or to save, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save, any person from legal punishment..."

🎯 Objective of Section 137

Section 137 seeks to:

Ensure integrity in public records.
Deter public servants from manipulating evidence or reports.
Safeguard the justice process from internal sabotage.
Maintain transparency and accountability in official duties.

🔍 Key Ingredients of the Offence

For prosecution under Section 137, the following must be proven:

The person is a public servant.
That public servant is responsible for preparing a record.
The record prepared is knowingly incorrect.
The intent or probable consequence is to:
- Cause injury or loss to any person or the public, OR
- Save someone from legal punishment.

🏛️ Illustrative Examples

Example 1: False Police FIR

A police officer records an FIR in a murder case but omits the main accused's name knowingly because the accused is a politician’s relative.

✅ This falls under Section 137 – knowingly framing an incorrect document to save someone.

Example 2: Revenue Forgery

A Tehsildar issues a land record that wrongly shows land belonging to someone else to help an encroacher avoid legal action.

✅ Again, a violation of Section 137 due to the intent to shield wrongdoing.

⚖️ Punishment

Provision	Punishment
Section 137	Imprisonment up to 7 years and fine

This penalty reflects the seriousness of public record falsification, especially when done to protect someone unlawfully.

📘 Offence Classification

Parameter	Detail
Cognizable	Yes
Bailable	No
Triable by	Magistrate of First Class
Compoundable	No

👨‍⚖️ Relevant Case Laws and Precedents

🔹 Prem Chand v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 613

The Supreme Court held that tampering with official records to help an accused escape justice is an act of serious misconduct and should attract criminal liability.

🔹 Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, 1996

Here, police officials altered investigation reports to protect their colleague from a corruption charge. The Court condemned the practice and upheld prosecution.

📚 IPC vs. BNS – Evolution of the Law

Section 137 of the BNS replaces Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The revised BNS section simplifies language and tightens focus on saving someone from legal punishment as a specific intent.

IPC Section 218	BNS Section 137
Broader and older language	Specific, modern intent-based focus
"Wrongful loss or injury" general	Includes "saving someone from punishment" clearly
Up to 3 years jail	Now 7 years + fine, showing increased severity

🛡️ Protection of Whistle-blowers

Section 137 indirectly supports whistle-blowers. When honest officers or citizens report attempts to falsify records, this section allows prosecution of offending public officials.

🌐 Real-World Example

🔍 Case Study: Tampered Forensic Report

Background: In a high-profile hit-and-run case, the original forensic report indicated alcohol in the blood of the accused. But a medical officer, under pressure, submitted a second "corrected" report showing no alcohol.

Investigation found the officer guilty of forging the report to help the accused escape punishment.

✅ He was charged under Section 137 of BNS.

🧾 Burden of Proof

To secure conviction under Section 137, the prosecution must prove:

The accused was legally responsible for the record.
The document was materially incorrect.
The intention was to protect someone or cause injury to others.
The accused knew the record was false.

Mere clerical errors or unintentional mistakes do not amount to an offence.

🧭 Section 137 vs. Other Similar Offences

Section	Offender	Act	Intent
137 BNS	Public servant	Frames incorrect official record	To save someone from punishment
191 BNS	Any person	Gives false evidence	General falsehood
136 BNS	Authority	Wrongfully confines a person	To stop a charge against a public servant
139 BNS	Public servant	Destroys or fabricates evidence	To protect someone or harm justice

🔐 Challenges in Enforcement

Despite clear provisions, implementation hurdles remain:

Political interference in police records
Pressure on lower-level officers
Lack of digital transparency in documentation systems
Delay in sanction to prosecute public servants

Strong internal vigilance and independent audits are needed.

✅ Best Practices for Prevention

To prevent misuse covered by Section 137:

Digitize all government recordkeeping.
Independent watchdogs must audit high-stakes reports.
Strict documentation protocols for all government forms and FIRs.
Protect internal whistle-blowers in the public service.

📊 Role of Judiciary and Advocates

Judges must demand justification and chain of evidence before accepting altered records.
Defense lawyers should challenge suspicious reports if used to exonerate an accused unfairly.
Prosecution can use Section 137 as a tool to discipline corrupt officers involved in shielding crimes.

🔎 Key Questions for Cross-Examination in Court

Who prepared the document?
Was the document altered or reissued?
Was the person preparing it aware of material facts?
Did the accused benefit or avoid punishment due to the document?
Is there an alternate, earlier version of the same report?

🧭 Real-Life Administrative Examples

Department	Common Offence
Police	Framing misleading FIRs or closing reports
Medical Boards	Submitting false fitness reports
Revenue Officers	Falsifying land ownership records
Transport Officials	Forging accident or inspection records

These acts, when intended to protect someone from legal consequences, can invite charges under Section 137.

🗣️ Public Accountability and Role of RTI

The Right to Information (RTI) Act plays a big role in exposing these falsifications.
Citizens can request original vs. modified copies of reports.
Discrepancies found can lead to Section 137 prosecutions.

🚨 Example from Media: Cover-Up in Custodial Death

In a custodial death case, the initial autopsy suggested internal injuries. But the final report omitted those injuries under pressure from senior police officials. The post-mortem officer was later charged under Section 137, after an independent panel intervened.

This highlights how systematic abuse of documentation is sometimes a collective effort — and needs whistle-blowers and judicial activism to unravel.

📋 Conclusion

Section 137 of the BNS, 2023 is a cornerstone in protecting the sanctity of public records. It ensures that those in power do not misuse documentation to protect others or themselves from justice. By holding public servants accountable, this section reinforces a critical pillar of democracy — truthful and transparent governance.

As India moves toward digital governance and transparent legal systems, this provision will become increasingly important. Citizens, lawyers, judges, and public servants must work together to ensure it is not just a law on paper, but a living tool of accountability.

🔜 Coming Up Next

➡️ Next Blog: Section 138 – Public Servant Making False Document to Injure a Person

Legal With Anurag

Search This Blog