​Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 –
Exclusion of Evidence to Contradict Answers to Questions Testing Veracity (Section 156)

Case Scenario
During a trial, a witness is asked whether he was earlier dismissed from a job for dishonesty. He denies it. The opposite party then attempts to bring documents and witnesses to prove that he was indeed dismissed for dishonesty. The court must decide: Can independent evidence be given to contradict the witness on this point, which relates only to his character and credibility?
The answer lies in Section 156 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

Purpose of Section 156
​Section 156 deals with the limits on contradicting a witness when he answers questions meant only to test his veracity or shake his credit. The law draws a clear boundary between:

• Questions relevant to the facts in issue, and
• Questions asked merely to attack the character or credibility of a witness

The main objective is to prevent trials from turning into lengthy inquiries into the personal character of witnesses rather than adjudication of the actual dispute.

General Rule under Section 156 When:

• A witness is asked a question that is relevant only to test his credibility by injuring his character, and
• The witness answers that question,

👉 No independent evidence can be given to contradict his answer, regardless of whether the answer is true or false.
However:

• If the answer is false, the witness may later be charged with giving false evidence under Section 229 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

Thus, the witness’s answer is treated as final and conclusive for the purpose of that trial.

Rationale Behind the Rule

• Courts are concerned with facts in issue, not the general character of witnesses
• Endless contradiction on collateral matters would:
  • Waste judicial time
  • Distract from the real controversy
• Therefore, the law says:
  “Take the witness at his word on character-related questions and move on.”

Exceptions to the General RuleSection 156 itself provides two important exceptions to prevent abuse by dishonest witnesses.

Exception 1: Denial of Previous Conviction

• If a witness is asked:
  • Whether he has been previously convicted of a crime, and
• He denies such conviction,

👉 Evidence may be given to prove the previous conviction.
Reason:

• Prior conviction is a matter of serious credibility
• A witness cannot escape scrutiny by lying about his criminal past

Exception 2: Questions Impeaching Impartiality

• If a witness is asked a question:
  • Intended to show bias, interest, or partiality, and
• He denies the facts suggested,

👉 His answer may be contradicted by independent evidence.
Examples of bias:

• Enmity
• Revenge
• Bribery
• Family feud
• Financial interest

Illustrations ExplainedIllustration (a)

• Claimant in an insurance case is asked about a prior fraudulent claim
• He denies it
• Evidence is offered to prove past fraud

❌ Evidence inadmissible
✔ Because it relates only to character

Illustration (b)

• Witness denies dismissal for dishonesty
• Evidence is offered to prove dismissal

❌ Evidence inadmissible
✔ Purely character-related

Illustration (c)

• Witness claims to have seen B at Goa
• He denies being himself at Varanasi on that day
• Evidence shows he was at Varanasi

✔ Evidence admissible
✔ Because it contradicts a fact in issue, not merely credibility

Illustration (d)

• Witness denies family feud with accused
• Evidence proves existence of feud

✔ Evidence admissible
✔ Because it shows bias and lack of impartiality

Scope of Section 156

• Applies only when:
  • Question is relevant solely to test credibility
• Does not apply when:
  • Question relates to a fact in issue or relevant fact

The court must carefully distinguish between:

• Character-based questions, and
• Fact-based questions

Important Judicial ClarificationState of Karnataka v. R. Yarappa Reddy

• Allegation: Eye-witness had family loan dispute with accused
• Witness was not questioned about the alleged transaction
• Later, prosecution tried to contradict her evidence through other witnesses

❌ Not allowed
Held:

• If a witness is not first questioned,
• There is no answer to contradict,
• Therefore, no independent evidence can be led

Key Legal Principles (Note Form)

• Character-related answers → Conclusive
• False answers → Perjury possible, not contradiction
• Previous conviction denial → Contradiction allowed
• Bias or partiality denial → Contradiction allowed
• Fact in issue denial → Contradiction allowed
• No question → No contradiction

Critical AnalysisStrengths

1. Prevents unnecessary character assassination
2. Keeps trial focused on real issues
3. Saves judicial time
4. Protects witnesses from harassment
5. Ensures procedural discipline

Limitations

1. Dishonest witnesses may escape exposure in some cases
2. Heavy reliance on perjury proceedings
3. Requires careful judicial distinction between fact and credibility

10 Illustrative Case Scenarios

1. Witness denies theft in past – cannot contradict
2. Witness denies conviction – conviction proved
3. Witness denies family feud – feud proved
4. Witness denies presence at place – contradiction allowed
5. Witness denies bias – evidence of bribe allowed
6. Witness lies about dismissal – no contradiction
7. Witness not questioned – later contradiction barred
8. Witness lies on oath – prosecuted for perjury
9. Court rejects collateral contradictions
10. Trial focused on substantive facts

ConclusionSection 156 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 strikes a careful balance between testing the credibility of witnesses and preventing trials from degenerating into inquiries about personal character. While the general rule bars contradiction of answers given solely to impeach credit, the law wisely carves out exceptions for prior convictions and bias to prevent misuse.
By enforcing procedural discipline and focusing on facts in issue, Section 156 ensures that justice remains efficient, fair, and centered on truth rather than character assassination.