Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
Section 156
Exclusion of evidence to contradict answers to questions testing veracity
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.
Why this exists
This rule comes from English evidence law principles absorbed into the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 153), and is carried forward almost verbatim into the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Its purpose is to prevent trials from turning into endless side-battles over a witness's general character or past unrelated misconduct, which would waste time and distract from the actual facts in dispute. At the same time, the two exceptions ensure that truly important matters — a witness's criminal history when directly denied, and signs of bias or partiality — can still be tested with real evidence, since these go closer to the reliability of the testimony itself rather than mere mudslinging.
How courts read it
Under the predecessor Section 153 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian courts consistently distinguished between questions that merely attack general credit or character (where contradiction is barred) and questions that touch upon facts in issue or bias/partiality (where contradiction is allowed). Courts have emphasized that the classification depends on the purpose and relevance of the question — if it relates to a fact actually in issue, Illustration (c) principles apply, and contradiction becomes permissible not as character evidence but as substantive proof. Courts have also protected witnesses from repeated harassment over old character issues while allowing bias to be tested rigorously.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: A witness can never be contradicted about their past once they deny something.
Fact: They can be contradicted if the denial concerns a past criminal conviction or shows possible bias — these are the two named exceptions. - Myth: This section stops all evidence about a witness's honesty.
Fact: It only stops evidence used purely to attack general character; if the question relates to actual facts in the case (as in Illustration c), contradiction is allowed.