IEA Section 153 is now BSA 156: Exclusion of evidence to contradict answers to questions testing veracity
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 · applies to offences and proceedings before 1 July 2024
BPR&D's comparison records a change. Read what changed before relying on the old wording.
What changed, per BPR&D: "Lahore" and Calcutta" are replaced by "Goa" and "Varanasi" respectively.
Printed in both official correspondence tables (BPR&D and NCRB).
IEA 153: Exclusion of evidence to contradict answers to questions testing veracity
Before 1 July 2024
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 after wards 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 bloodfeud 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.
BSA 156: Exclusion of evidence to contradict answers to questions testing veracity
From 1 July 2024
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.
Which one applies
Under section 170(2) of the BSA, an application, trial, inquiry, investigation, proceeding or appeal already pending on 1 July 2024 is dealt with under the Evidence Act; one begun on or after that date, under the BSA.
Read BSA section 170 →Judgments decided under IEA 153
They remain the law on IEA 153. Where the provision changed in the move, read what changed before relying on one for an offence after 1 July 2024.
Sources
- Correspondence Table and Comparison Summary of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 to the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Bureau of Police Research & Development, Ministry of Home Affairs, page 12.
- Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: bare Act with Corresponding Section Table, National Crime Records Bureau (Sankalan), page 24.
- The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872), as amended, India Code, Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice.
BPR&D is the Bureau of Police Research & Development (Ministry of Home Affairs); NCRB the National Crime Records Bureau. Their correspondence tables are training aids, not law. This page is general information, not legal advice on any case; the bare Acts as published by the Government of India are the authority.