The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS
PART IV: PRODUCTION AND EFFECT OF EVIDENCE
CHAPTER X: OF EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES
Section 156: Exclusion of evidence to contradict answers to questions testing veracity.
Bare Act
When a witness has been asked and has answered any question which is relevant to the inquiry only in so far as it tends to shake his credit by injuring his character, no evidence shall be given to contradict him; but, if he answers falsely, he may afterwards be charged with giving false evidence.
Exception 1
If a witness is asked whether he has been previously convicted of any crime and denies it, evidence may be given of his previous conviction.
Exception 2
If a witness is asked any question tending to impeach his impartiality, and answers it by denying the facts suggested, he may be contradicted.
Illustrations
- (a) A claim against an underwriter is resisted on the ground of fraud. The claimant is asked whether, in a former transaction, he had not made a fraudulent claim. He denies it. Evidence is offered to show that he did make such a claim. The evidence is inadmissible.
- (b) A witness is asked whether he was not dismissed from a situation for dishonesty. He denies it. Evidence is offered to show that he was dismissed for dishonesty. The evidence is not admissible.
- (c) A affirms that on a certain day he saw B at Goa. A is asked whether he himself was not on that day at Varanasi. He denies it. Evidence is offered to show that A was on that day at Varanasi. The evidence is admissible, not as contradicting A on a fact which affects his credit, but as contradicting the alleged fact that B was seen on the day in question in Goa. In each of these cases, the witness might, if his denial was false, be charged with giving false evidence.
- (d) A is asked whether his family has not had a blood feud with the family of B against whom he gives evidence. He denies it. He may be contradicted on the ground that the question tends to impeach his impartiality.
Simplified Act
When a witness is asked a question that is only relevant because it might make them look bad and they answer it, no other evidence can be used to prove them wrong. However, if they lie, they can be charged with lying later.
Exception 1
If a witness is asked if they have been convicted of a crime before and they say no, evidence can be shown to prove they were convicted.
Exception 2
If a witness is asked a question that suggests they might be biased and they deny it, evidence can be shown to prove they are biased.
Illustrations
- (a) Someone is claiming money from an insurance company, and the company says the claim is fraudulent. The claimant is asked if they made a fraudulent claim before and they deny it. Evidence is offered to show they did m… Read the complete text with KanoonGPT Pro.
Explanation using examples
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.
