Section 137 Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Witness not excused from answering on ground that answer will criminate

Section 137 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Witness not excused from answering on ground that answer will criminate

Official Bare Act Text

Override / Mandate Mens Rea (Intent) Actus Reus (Conduct) Punishment Limitation Monetary

A witness shall not be excused from answering any question as to any matter relevant to the matter in issue in any suit or in any civil or criminal proceeding, upon the ground that the answer to such question will criminate, or may tend directly or indirectly to criminate, such witness, or that it will expose, or tend directly or indirectly to expose, such witness to a penalty or forfeiture of any kind:

Provided that no such answer, which a witness shall be compelled to give, shall subject him to any arrest or prosecution, or be proved against him in any criminal proceeding, except a prosecution forgiving false evidence by such answer.

Statutory Defined Terms in this Section: (Click any term for official legal definition)

Court Sec 2(1)(a)

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 137

Section 137 establishes that a witness shall not be excused from answering any question relevant to the matter in issue upon the ground that the answer will criminate them, but provides a statutory immunity that no such answer shall subject them to arrest or prosecution.

Abolition of Witness Silence: A witness cannot refuse to answer relevant questions on the ground of self-incrimination.
Compulsory Answer Mandate: The court compels the witness to answer all questions relevant to the fact in issue.
Statutory Use-Immunity Proviso: Constitutional compromise: the compelled answer cannot be used against the witness in any criminal prosecution (except for giving false evidence).

Key Landmark Precedents:

Ritesh Sinha v. State of U.P. (2019) 8 SCC 1: A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court analyzed Article 20(3) and witness examination under Section 132 IEA (Section 137 BSA), affirming the constitutional validity of statutory use-immunity.
Laxmipat Choraria v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1968 SC 938): Held that where a witness is compelled to answer incriminating questions under Section 132, the statutory proviso provides complete immunity against subsequent prosecution based on that answer.

Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

When your witness hesitates to answer an incriminating question during cross-examination, request the court to direct the witness to answer under Section 137 BSA; this activates the statutory proviso, granting the witness absolute immunity from prosecution.