Section 156 Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Exclusion of evidence to contradict answers to questions testing veracity

Section 156 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Exclusion of evidence to contradict answers to questions testing veracity

Official Bare Act Text

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

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.

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

Court Sec 2(1)(a)

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 156

Section 156 establishes the rule of finality of answers to questions testing veracity, providing that 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 their credit by injuring their character, no evidence shall be given to contradict them.

Finality of Collateral Answers: Prevents collateral trials within trials: if a witness denies a collateral moral imputation, their answer is final.
Exclusion of Contradictory Proof: The cross-examiner cannot call independent witnesses to prove that the witness lied on that collateral point.
Two Statutory Exceptions: Contradictory evidence IS admissible if: (1) The witness denies a previous criminal conviction, or (2) The witness denies facts showing bias or partiality toward a party.

Key Landmark Precedents:

State of Maharashtra v. Manglya (1973) 75 Bom LR 484: The Bombay High Court analyzed Section 153 IEA (Section 156 BSA), holding that answers to questions going solely to character are final, preserving trial efficiency.
Khashaba Maruti Shelke v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 449: Affirmed that evidence to prove bias or prior conviction is always admissible as an express statutory exception to the finality rule.

Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

Remember the two golden exceptions to Section 156: if the adverse witness falsely denies that they have a prior criminal conviction or denies that they received money from your opponent, you CAN tender certified copies and proof to contradict them.