Section 153 of IEA : Section 153: Exclusion of evidence to contradict answers to questions testing veracity.

Explanation using Example

Example 1:

During a trial for theft, the defense attorney asks the prosecution's key witness, Mr. Sharma, whether he has ever been convicted of theft before. Mr. Sharma denies having any prior convictions. The defense attorney then presents a certified copy of a court judgment showing that Mr. Sharma was indeed convicted of theft five years ago. This evidence is admissible under Exception 1, as it pertains to a previous conviction.

Example 2:

In a civil case involving a property dispute, the plaintiff's witness, Ms. Gupta, testifies that she saw the defendant trespassing on the disputed property on a specific date. The defense attorney asks Ms. Gupta if she was actually in another city on that date. Ms. Gupta denies it. The defense attorney then presents travel records showing that Ms. Gupta was indeed in another city on that date. This evidence is admissible, not to discredit Ms. Gupta's character, but to contradict her testimony about seeing the defendant on the disputed property.

Example 3:

In a criminal trial, a witness, Mr. Khan, is asked whether he was dismissed from his previous job for dishonesty. Mr. Khan denies it. The opposing counsel attempts to introduce evidence showing that Mr. Khan was indeed dismissed for dishonesty. This evidence is not admissible under Section 153, as it only serves to injure Mr. Khan's character and does not directly relate to the facts of the case.

Example 4:

During a murder trial, a witness, Mr. Verma, is asked whether his family has a long-standing feud with the family of the accused. Mr. Verma denies any such feud. The defense attorney then presents evidence showing that there has been a blood feud between the two families for decades. This evidence is admissible under Exception 2, as it tends to impeach Mr. Verma's impartiality.

Example 5:

In a fraud case, the claimant, Mr. Patel, is asked whether he had previously made a fraudulent insurance claim. Mr. Patel denies it. The defense attempts to introduce evidence showing that Mr. Patel did make a fraudulent claim in the past. This evidence is not admissible under Section 153, as it only serves to injure Mr. Patel's character and does not directly relate to the current case.