This article is written by Saswoti Rath a law graduate from SOA NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF LAW BA LL. B(Hons) during her internship at LeDroit India.
Keywords: Indian Evidence Act, Impeaching credit of witnesses, Section 155 IEA, Prior inconsistent statements, Witness credibility, Hostile witness
Abstract:
The validity of a witness could be a foundation of the legal handle, specifically affecting the result of legitimate procedures. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, especially Section 155, provides a structured system to impeach the credit of witnesses and ensures that the courts consider only reliable testimony. Impeaching the credit of a witness alludes to the method of challenging the dependability, trustworthiness, or unwavering quality of a witness’s declaration, subsequently shielding the keenness of legal decisions Section 155 of the Act enables the antagonistic party, and with the court authorization, indeed the party calling the witness, to question a witness credit through particular strategies. These incorporate: (a) displaying prove from people who, based on individual information, accept the witness is unworthy of credit; (b) demonstrating that the witness has been bribed or has acknowledged any degenerate actuation to affirm; and (c) illustrating that the witness has already made explanations conflicting with their current declaration .Cross-examination, as sketched out in Segments 138 and 146, serves as a essential device for testing the veracity and character of a witness, permitting the restricting party to uncover irregularities or thought processes that will weaken credibility
Introduction
The validity of witnesses is crucial to the legal assurance of truths. The Indian legitimate framework, like numerous others, places noteworthy accentuation on witness declaration amid trials. Be that as it may, it is recognized that not all witnesses are honest or unbiased. A few may be impacted by outside weights, harbor individual inclinations, or intentioned give untrue declaration. To counter such conceivable outcomes, the Indian Prove Act, 1872 incorporates arrangements that permit for the arraignment of a witness’s credit. This handle is crucial in isolating dependable declarations from those that might delude the court. It guarantees that equity is based on sound and reliable evidence.
Statutory System: Areas 145, 153, 154, and 155 of IEA https://ledroitindia.in/difference-between-the-indian-evidence-act1872-andbharatiya-sakshya-adhiniyam-bsa/Section 155 is the primary provision managing with the arraignment of witness credit. It gives that the credit of a witness may be reprimanded within the taking after ways:
1. By the prove of people who affirm that they, from their information of the witness, accept him to be unworthy of credit.
2. By verification that the witness has been bribed or has acknowledged an offer of a bribe.
3. By verification of previous explanations conflicting with any portion of his testimony. This section must be read along with Section 145, which allows cross-examining witnesses on their previous written statements, and Section 154, which allows a party to cross-examine its own witness when declared hostile. Segment 153 limits the utilize of character prove unless it specifically relates to validity. These segments shape a comprehensive lawful structure for testing the unwavering quality of a witness.
Cross-examination and Earlier Explanations:
Section 145 often works together with Section 155(3). It allows the cross-examiner to question a witness about previous written statements relevant to the case. If the cross-examiner intends to contradict the witness using these statements, they must specifically draw the witness’s attention to the relevant portions meant for contradiction.For case, a witness in a kill case affirms in court that he saw the denounced with the weapon. If, during the investigation, he told the police that he did not see the weapon, the cross-examiner can use this earlier statement to question his credibility by drawing his attention to it under Section 145.
Declaring a Witness Antagonistic:
Area 154 Section 154 gives for a situation where a party’s claim witness turns hostile that is, veers off from their prior explanation. In such a case, with the consent of the court, the party may cross-examine their claim witness. Usually vital because otherwise, a party would be bound by the declaration of its witness, be that as it may antagonistic it may be. In Sat Paul v. Delhi Organization, Discuss 1976 SC 294, the Incomparable Court elaborated that pronouncing a witness antagonistic does not ipso facto ruin the complete declaration. Parcels of the declaration that are authenticated by other prove can still be accepted. Illustrations and Commonsense
Illustrations
Illustration 1: Witness X gives a composed articulation amid examination expressing that he was not show at the scene. In court, he states he was present and saw the whole occurrence. This inconsistency can be highlighted beneath Area 145 and utilized to question his validity beneath Segment 155(3).
Illustration 2: Witness Y is found to have gotten a whole of money from the family of the blamed earlier to affirming. Prove of such bribery straightforwardly arraigns his credit beneath Area 155(2).
Illustration 3: Witness Z includes a earlier conviction for prevarication. Prove of this conviction can be presented beneath Segment 155(1) to propose that he is unworthy of credit.
Landmark and Recent Judgments https://indiankanoon.org/
- Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana, (1976) 1 SCC 389
The Court ruled that impeaching a witness must be based on specific, legally admissible grounds. It reiterated the importance of providing the witness with an opportunity to explain contradictions. - Krishna Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC 130
Held that prior inconsistent statements, if proved in accordance with Section 145, are valid grounds for impeachment under Section 155(3). - Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana, (2016) 4 SCC 496
Recognized bribery and inducement as serious grounds for discrediting a witness. The Court admitted evidence suggesting the witness had received illegal gratification. - K.P. Tamilmaran v. State, Criminal Appeal No. 33/2015
Clarified that hostile witnesses can still offer admissible testimony if corroborated. The Court also emphasized procedural fairness in declaring a witness hostile. - State of Rajasthan v. Bhawani, (2003) 7 SCC 291
The Court held that it cannot brush aside hostile testimony if other reliable evidence corroborates it. - Ramesh Harijan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 5 SCC 777
The Court reiterated that parties can use contradictions between the FIR and oral testimony for impeachment if they properly prove them.
Procedural Safeguards and Limits
It is essential to ensure that impeachment is not misused as a tool for harassment or delay. The court has discretion in permitting questions aimed at discrediting a witness. Improper use of impeachment provisions can also dilute the focus of cross-examinations and prejudice the trial process. Hence, procedural safeguards like court permission under Section 154 and specific contradiction requirements under Section 145 ensure balanced application.
Comparative Insight: Position in Other Jurisdictions
In the United Kingdom, the Criminal Justice Act, 2003 allows the prosecution to impeach its own witness under certain conditions. Similarly, in the United States, Rule 607 of the Federal Rules of Evidence permits attacking a witness’s credibility by any party, including the one that called the witness. The Indian framework, while rooted in colonial principles, continues to evolve with judicial interpretations aligning with global standards.
Practical Advocacy Tips
- Prepare thoroughly by examining all prior statements, affidavits, and depositions.
- Strategically plan cross-examinations to focus on inconsistencies and motives.
- Document any evidence suggesting bribery or inducement.
- Use certified copies of past convictions if relying on character-based impeachment.
- Be cautious when moving to declare a witness hostile; obtain judicial permission with clear justifications.
Critical Analysis
While the provisions for impeaching a witness’s credit are robust, they rely heavily on the quality of documentation and the skill of the examining counsel. Further, courts have shown restraint in accepting character-based attacks unless strongly substantiated. The judiciary’s reluctance to discard hostile testimony outright is a progressive step toward nuanced fact-finding. However, inconsistencies in police documentation, delays in cross-examinations, and limited access to prior statements in lower courts present practical challenges.
Conclusion
Impeaching the credit of witnesses under the Indian Evidence Act is a cornerstone of effective trial advocacy, ensuring that only credible, unbiased, and consistent testimonies inform judicial decisions.
A framework of statutory provisions—primarily Sections 145, 153, 154, and 155—governs the process and empowers Indian courts to critically assess the reliability of witnesses and protect the integrity of the trial process.
Section 145 allows the cross-examiner to confront a witness with prior inconsistent statements after specifically drawing the witness’s attention to the relevant portions before establishing the contradiction.
Section 153 limits collateral attacks on a witness’s character, allowing contradiction only in cases involving prior convictions or questions of impartiality, thus protecting witnesses from unnecessary character assassination. Section 154 grants the court discretion to allow a party to cross-examine its own witness if they turn hostile, recognizing the practical realities of witness hostility and the need for procedural flexibility Most crucially, Section 155 outlines explicit methods for impeaching a witness’s credit: by introducing testimony from those who believe the witness is unworthy of credit, by proving the witness has accepted bribes or other corrupt inducements, and by establishing that the witness has made previous statements inconsistent with their current testimony
Judicial scrutiny, procedural rigour, and effective legal practice are essential in applying these provisions. The courts exercise their powers judiciously, balancing the right to challenge unreliable testimony with the protection of witnesses from undue harassment or irrelevant attacks This process not only exposes deception and error but also reinforces the foundational principles of truth and justice in the adversarial system.
In a legal system striving for fairness, the power to impeach the credit of witnesses remains a vital safeguard. It ensures that trustworthy evidence guides the fact-finding process, protects the rights of all parties, and strengthens public confidence in the administration of justice. By rigorously applying the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, the courts enhance their ability to discern the truth and deliver just outcomes.
Reference
- Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana, (1976) 1 SCC 389 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1320937/
- Krishna Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC 130 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/48219736/
- Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana, (2016) 4 SCC 496
- https://indiankanoon.org/doc/116242231/
- K.P. Tamilmaran v. State – https://indiankanoon.org/doc/133213474/
- State of Rajasthan v. Bhawani, (2003) 7 SCC 291 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/536358/
- Ramesh Harijan v. State of U.P., (2012) 5 SCC 777 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1001242/
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1039021/
