Section 156 of BSA : Section 156: Exclusion of evidence to contradict answers to questions testing veracity.

Explanation using Example

Example 1:

Ravi is a witness in a theft case. During cross-examination, the defense lawyer asks Ravi if he has ever been convicted of theft before. Ravi denies having any previous convictions. The defense lawyer then presents court records showing that Ravi was indeed convicted of theft five years ago. According to Exception 1 of Section 156, this evidence is admissible to contradict Ravi's denial.

Example 2:

Sunita is testifying in a property dispute case. The opposing lawyer asks Sunita if she was fired from her previous job for dishonesty. Sunita denies being fired for dishonesty. The lawyer attempts to introduce evidence showing that Sunita was indeed fired for dishonesty. According to the main provision of Section 156, this evidence is not admissible to contradict Sunita's answer.

Example 3:

Raj is a witness in a murder trial. He testifies that he saw the accused, Mohan, in Mumbai on the day of the murder. The prosecutor asks Raj if he was actually in Delhi on that day. Raj denies being in Delhi. The prosecutor then presents evidence showing that Raj was indeed in Delhi on the day of the murder. According to Illustration (c) of Section 156, this evidence is admissible, not to discredit Raj's character, but to contradict the fact that Mohan was seen in Mumbai on the day in question.

Example 4:

Anil is testifying in a case involving a land dispute. During cross-examination, the lawyer asks Anil if his family has a long-standing feud with the family of the defendant. Anil denies any such feud. The lawyer then presents evidence showing that there has been a blood feud between the two families for decades. According to Exception 2 of Section 156, this evidence is admissible to impeach Anil's impartiality.