Exclusion of Evidence to Contradict Answers to Questions Testing Veracity

The general rule of evidence is that no witness shall be cited to contradict another witness if the evidence is intended only to shake the credit of another witness. The said rule has been incorporated in Section 153 of the Evidence Act which reads thus :

153. 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 Lahore. A is asked whether he himself was not on that day at Calcutta. He denies it. Evidence is offered to show that A was on that day at Calcutta. 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 Lahore. 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.

When a witness has answered any question which is relevant to enquiring as it tends to shake his credit by injuring his character, then no evidence is to be given to contradict him. There are, however, two exceptions to this section and, thus, evidence about previous conviction can be given when the witness denies that he was previously convicted. 

Secondly he can be contradicted when the witness denies facts suggested to impeach his impartiality. The basic requirement for adducing such contradictory evidence is that the witness, whose impartiality is sought to be contradicted with the help of such evidence, should have been asked about it and he should have denied it. Without adopting such a preliminary recourse it would be meaningless, if not unfair, to bring in a new witness to speak something fresh about a witness already examined. 

This evidence to contradict answer given to testing veracity would be permissible under these exceptions, though otherwise evidence to contradict a witness testing veracity is excluded.

Section 153 is based on the decision rendered by Pollock CB in Attorney General v. Hitchock (1847 (1) Ex.91) in which the learned Judge observed that a witness may be contradicted as to anything he denies having said provided it be connected with the issue as a matter capable of being distinctly given in evidence, or it must be so far connected with it as to be a matter which, if answered in a particular way, would contradict a part of the witnesss testimony, and if it is neither the one nor the other of these, it is collateral to though in some sense it may be considered as connected with, the subject of enquiry. The rule limiting the right to call evidence to contradict a witness on collateral issues excludes all evidence of facts which are incapable of affording any reasonable presumption or inference as to the principal matter in dispute, 1999 (4) SCC 36 : AIR 1999 SC 1311. Vijayan Vijayakumar v. State Rep.By Inspector Of Police [Supreme Court of India, 22-03-1999]

COMMENTS

In all situations it cannot be said that such an examination of a witness to contradict another witness is not barred under Section 153 of the Indian Evidence Act; whereas, the bar comes into play only when questions to shake the credit or credibility of a witness were put to that witness by injuring his character, 2018 (1) KHC 925. Mohammed Haneef @ Jackie Haneef v. State [Kerala High Court, 12-02-2018]

Evidentiary value of CD and Principles regarding admissibility of a tape recorded statement. State v. Shailendra Kamalkishor Pande, 2008 CriLJ 95 [Gujarat High Court, 29-06-2007]

The evidence of the tape recorded conversation/statement apart from being used for corroboration is admissible for the purposes stated in Section 146 (1), Exception (2) to section 153 and section 155 (3) of the Evidence Act, AIR 1971 SC 1162 : 1971 (1) SCR 399. [N. Sri Rama Reddy v. V.V. Giri [Supreme Court of India, 24-07-1970]