In any legal proceeding, the credibility of a witness can significantly impact the outcome. The testimony of a reliable witness may sway the court’s decision, while a questionable witness can cast doubts on the evidence presented. Section 158 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) focuses on concept of “Impeaching the Credit of a Witness .” This legal provision empowers parties to challenge the credibility of witnesses through clearly defined methods,
What does it mean by Impeaching the Credit of a Witness ?
Impeaching the credit of a witness means challenging or questioning the reliability and honesty of a witness’s testimony during a trial. Under Section 158 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), the opposing party (or, with the court’s permission, the party who called the witness) can challenge a witness’s credibility in specific ways. Let’s break it down in simple terms:
Section 158 Impeaching the Credit of a Witness .
The credit of a witness may be impeached in the following ways by the adverse party, or, with the consent of the Court, by the party who calls him—
(a) by the evidence of persons who testify that they, from their knowledge of the witness, believe him to be unworthy of credit;
(b) by proof that the witness has been bribed, or has accepted the offer of a bribe, or has received any other corrupt inducement to give his evidence;
(c) by proof of former statements inconsistent with any part of his evidence which is liable to be contradicted.
How to Impeach a Witness’s Credit ? under Section 158 BSA
1. By Testimony of Others About the Witness’s Character (Section 158(a))
- People who personally know the witness can be called to testify that they believe the witness is not trustworthy. This can challenge the overall reliability of the witness’s evidence.
- Example: Suppose in a theft case, a witness says they saw the accused stealing. The opposing party can call someone who knows the witness to testify that the witness has a history of lying or dishonesty, suggesting that their testimony might not be credible.
2. By Proving Bribery or Corruption (Section 158(b))
- If it can be shown that the witness has been bribed or received any kind of corrupt incentive to testify in a particular way, their credibility can be questioned.
- Example : In a property dispute, if a witness testifies in favor of one party, and the opposing party shows proof that the witness accepted money from that party to give false testimony, the witness’s evidence loses credibility.
3. By Showing Inconsistent Statements (Section 158(c))
- If the witness previously made statements that contradict what they are saying in court now, those earlier statements can be used to challenge their current testimony.
- Example : If a witness in a car accident case states in court that the accident happened at night, but earlier told the police it happened in the morning, this inconsistency can be highlighted to show that the witness might be unreliable.
Explanation.—A witness declaring another witness to be unworthy of credit may not, upon his examination-in-chief, give reasons for his belief, but he may be asked his reasons in cross-examination, and the answers which he gives cannot be contradicted, though, if they are false, he may afterwards be charged with giving false evidence.
Understand the Explanation :
When someone testifies that another witness is unreliable, they cannot provide reasons for this belief during the main examination (examination-in-chief). However, during cross-examination, they can be asked why they think so. The answers given during cross-examination cannot be disputed or challenged, but if those answers are false, the witness could face charges for providing false evidence.
Illustrations:
(a) A sues B for the price of goods sold and delivered to B. C says that he delivered the goods to B. Evidence is offered to show that, on a previous occasion, he said that he had not delivered goods to B. The evidence is admissible.
(b) A is accused of the murder of B. C says that B, when dying, declared that A had given B the wound of which he died. Evidence is offered to show that, on a previous occasion, C said that B, when dying, did not declare that A had given B the wound of which he died. The evidence is admissible
READ MORE : Section 23 Admissibility of Confessions to Police Officers Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA)
Secondary Evidence under Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 : A Detailed Guide
Comparison: Section 158 of BSA and Section 155 of the Indian Evidence Act
Section 158 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) is quite similar to Section 155 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which also deals with impeaching the credit of a witness. Here’s a breakdown of the comparison:
1. Scope of Impeachment:
- Under Section 158 BSA, a party can challenge a witness’s credibility by questioning their trustworthiness, bribery, or inconsistencies.
- Section 155 of the Indian Evidence Act allows similar challenges. It specifically includes questioning the truthfulness of the witness, showing prior bribery, proving earlier contradictory statements, or pointing out past false evidence.
2. Testimony of Character :
Both sections permit others to testify that a witness is not credible due to personal knowledge of their character.
3. Use of Past Statements :
Both sections allow the use of previous statements that conflict with the current testimony to challenge a witness’s reliability.
Important Considerations:
- Section 159: This section permits questioning a witness about circumstances they observed at or near the time and place of the relevant fact to corroborate their testimony. For example, if an accomplice describes details unrelated to the crime but observed during the event, independent evidence of those details can strengthen their overall credibility.
- Section 160: This section allows the introduction of previous statements made by the witness to corroborate their later testimony regarding the same fact. These statements can have been made at or about the time of the event or before an authority investigating the matter.
- Explanation to Section 158: A witness who testifies that another witness is unworthy of credit cannot provide reasons for their belief during their examination-in-chief. However, they can be questioned about their reasons during cross-examination, and their responses are not subject to contradiction. However, if their responses are false, they could face charges of giving false evidence.
Relevant Supreme court and High court case laws
1. Rajendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2023)
In this case, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of cross-examination as a tool for impeaching the credit of a witness. The Court held that contradictions between the witness’s statements made during the investigation and in the courtroom could severely impact the witness’s credibility. The judgment underlined that prior inconsistent statements could be crucial for assessing a witness’s reliability.
Thus The ruling highlighted that previous contradictory statements by a witness should be thoroughly scrutinized to determine their truthfulness.
2. Krishna Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC 130
This case revolved around the admissibility of prior statements and their effect on a witness’s credibility. The Court emphasized that inconsistent statements made before different authorities could be used to challenge the reliability of the witness’s testimony. It reiterated that the process of impeaching credibility must be carefully weighed against the context of the case.
It is established that, A witness’s previous statements made before different forums can be a basis for impeaching credibility, particularly if they contradict courtroom testimony.
3. Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana, (1976) 1 SCC 389
In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court clarified the use of testimony by persons who claim that the witness is not trustworthy, in accordance with Section 155 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court highlighted that the evidence should not merely attack the witness’s general character but should specifically relate to the credibility of the statements made in the case at hand.
Testimony about a witness’s untrustworthiness must be specific and relevant to the matter before the court.
4. Vijayan v. State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398
This judgment dealt with the challenge of witness credibility through the evidence of character. The Court clarified that evidence from individuals familiar with the witness’s character must be closely scrutinized for reliability. It reiterated that such testimony should aim at the specific credibility of the witness concerning the matter under examination, not merely their general reputation.
Evidence from persons familiar with the witness’s character should specifically address credibility in the context of the case rather than general behavior.
5. Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana, (2016) 4 SCC 496
In this case, the Supreme Court focused on bribery or corrupt inducements as a means to impeach a witness’s credit. It emphasized that any credible evidence of bribery or inducement to influence testimony could severely damage the witness’s reliability. The ruling highlighted the legal standards required to prove bribery or corruption.
Proving bribery or corruption in relation to testimony requires substantial evidence, but once established, it is a strong ground for discrediting a witness.
7. State of Maharashtra v. P.B. Deshmukh, (1979) 3 SCC 483
The Supreme Court discussed the use of cross-examination to expose contradictions in a witness’s statements. It ruled that effective cross-examination is a vital component in impeaching a witness’s credibility, particularly when prior inconsistent statements come to light.
Cross-examination plays a critical role in testing the reliability of a witness’s testimony by bringing out inconsistencies.
8. Ram Singh v. Col. Ram Singh, (1985) Supp SCC 611
This judgment focused on the legal standard for using a witness’s past inconsistent statements as grounds for impeachment. The Court clarified the admissibility of such statements and the criteria for evaluating their relevance and impact on credibility.
Not all inconsistent statements are relevant; only those that have a significant bearing on the material facts of the case are admissible for impeaching credibility.
FAQs
Q1: What do you mean by impeaching the credit of a witness?
Impeaching the credit of a witness means challenging their trustworthiness or honesty during a legal proceeding.
Q2: Who can impeach the credit of a witness under Section 158 of the BSA?
The opposing party, or with the court’s permission, the party who called the witness, can impeach a witness’s credibility.
Q3: Can evidence of bribery or corruption be used to impeach a witness?
Yes, evidence showing that a witness was bribed or influenced can be used to challenge their credibility.
Q4: What role do inconsistent statements play in impeaching a witness’s credit?
Inconsistent statements can highlight discrepancies in a witness’s testimony, questioning their reliability.
Q5: Can a witness testify about another witness’s untrustworthiness?
Yes, individuals who know the witness can testify that the witness is not credible, but they cannot initially provide reasons without cross-examination.
Q6: How does Section 158 of the BSA compare with Section 155 of the Indian Evidence Act?
Both sections allow similar methods for challenging a witness’s credibility, focusing on inconsistencies, bribery, and testimony of character.Q7: What happens if a witness gives false reasons for discrediting another witness?
If a witness’s reasons for discrediting another witness are proven false, they could face charges for providing false evidence.