Impeaching the Credit of a Witness .

A research proportion submitted in fulfillment of the course Law of Evidence

for obtaining the degree B.B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) during the academic session:
2019-20 Submitted by:

Satyanand, B.B.A., LL.B. (Hons.)

Roll: 2041

Submitted to:

Dr. Meeta Mohini

Faculty of Law of Evidence

March , 2020

Chanakya National Law University, Nyaya Nagar,

Mithapur, Patna-800001, Bihar
Cross – examination as to credit, or impeachment is designed to attack the credibility of the
witness in the eyes of the jury. It may consist of exploration of the facts of the case using a
previous statement made by witness inconsistent with the witness’s evidence at trial or it may
involve matters extraneous to the actual facts of the case, for example, evidence of bad character
or medical or other evidence, to effect of which is to suggest that the witness should not be
believed on oath. Matters which affect only the credit of the witness, and are not otherwise
relevant to the case are collateral.

OBJECTIVES

The researcher has the following objectives:

1. Discuss the meaning of trustworthy evidence.

2. Discuss applicability of The Doctrine of Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus in India.

HYPOTHESIS

There are the following hypothesis:

1. Where one part of the statement of a witness is found to be false, then the entire
testimony of the witness is liable to be rejected.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The research work is totally doctrinal method. It includes both primary as well as secondary
sources.

LIMITATIONS

Area of limitations – Every study has own limitation due to the limited time, lack of sufficient
financial sources and limited area of survey/study of the subject matter.
 Table of content

1. Introduction.
INTRODUCTION

Impeaching the credit of a witness means to show the real character of the witness so that the
court may not trust him. Credibility of a witness is very important for the court in deciding the
truth of the testimony. Indeed, it would be unfair to convict anybody solely on the testimony of a
habitual liar. Thus, it is imperative upon the adverse party to make sure that the witness is
credible and so it can ask questions that may impeach the credit of the witness. 

At its most basic, credibility involves the issue whether the witness appears to be telling the truth
as he believes it to be. Involved in the assessment may be judgments about whether the witness
can generally be considered to be a truthful or untruthful person and whether, although generally
truthful, he may be telling less than the truth on this occasion.The witness being a medium
through which the court is to arrive at the truth or falsity of the claim or charge in litigation, it is
always necessary to ascertain the trustworthiness of this medium. This is the common function of
cross-examination, which is, however, not in all cases adequate. It is necessary, therefore, that
the parties should be empowered to give independent testimony as to the character of the witness
with a view to show that he is unworthy of belief by the court, which may be done in the four
ways specified in section 155 of the Evidence Act, 1872. To avoid entering upon irrelevant
matters, the section should be strictly construed. The court has always the power to recall a
witness at any stage of the proceeding and to put any questions in any form.

Who is a credible witness?

Credible witness is a person making testimony in a court or other tribunal, or acting otherwise as
a witness, whose credibility is unimpeachable. A witness may have more or less credibility, or
no credibility at all. In the common law system, the term 'credible witness' may be used
generally, to refer to testimony, or for the witnessing of certain documents.Several factors affect
witnesses' credibility. A credible witness is "competent to give evidence, and is worthy of belief.
Generally, a witness is deemed to be credible if they are recognized (or can be recognized) as a
source of reliable information about someone, an event, or a phenomenon.
When?
As per Section 146, which describes the questions that are lawful in cross examination, it is
lawful to ask questions during cross examination to test his veracity, to discover who he is and
what his position is in live, and to shake his credit by injuring his character. Thus, it is clear that
the credit of a witness can be impeached by the adverse party in his cross examination. However,
when it is suggested that the witness is not speaking the truth, it is necessary to draw his attention
to it by questions in cross examination. It cannot be argued that a witness is unworthy of credit
without giving his an opportunity to explain while he is in the witness box.

How?
If a witness denies the suggestions put in cross examination, evidence to contradict him can be
called. This flows from the general rule given in Section 5, which allows evidence of relevant
facts to be given. However, when such evidence is not relevant otherwise and is only useful in
shaking the credit of the witness, the provisions of Section 153 and 155 are applicable. Section
155 provides the ways through which the credit of a witness may be impeached. Section 153 -
Exclusion of evidence to contradict answers to questions testing veracity 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 but it has two
exceptions. This section provides an important protection to the witness against character
assassination. If a witness has answered a question whose purpose is only to discredit him,
whatever may be his answer, no evidence can be shown to disprove or contradict him. This
applies only to the answers that are not relevant to the facts of the case and not to answers to the
questions that are relevant to the case. The two exceptions contained in the section are meant to
prevent misuse of this provision. Thus, a person is not allowed to lie about his prior conviction
and he is not allowed to be partial.
Section 155

Impeaching credit of 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:—

(1) By the evidence of persons who testify that they, from their knowledge of the witness
believe him to be unworthy of credit;

(2) 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;

(3) By proof of former statements inconsistent with any part of his evidence which is
liable to be contradicted;

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.
Scope:

Section 155 prescribes manner of impeaching the credit of a witness. Section 155 lays down a
different method of discrediting a witness by allowing independent evidence to be led. The credit
of a witness is generally impeached by the opposite party. But when the witness has become
hostile, his credit may be impeached, with the permission of the court, by the very party who has
called him. Impeaching the credit of a witness means exposing his real character to the court so
that the court may not trust him. The ways in which the credit of a witness may be impeached are
indicated in section 155

. This section permits the following methods for the purpose :

Unworthy of Credit

Independent evidence may be given that a witness examined by the opponent bears such a
general reputation for untruthfulness that he is unworthy of credit. Such a witness must have
personal knowledge of the witness. The credit of the witness was sought to be questioned by
showing that he disclosed the fact of the rape which he witnessed not immediately but the next
day1. The court cited the following from a judgment of the Supreme Court2.

“ A person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way. Some are stunned, become
speechless and stand rotted to the spot. Some become hysteric and start wailing. Some start
shouting for help. Others run away to keep themselves as far removed from the spot as possible.
Yet others rush to the rescue of the victim, even going to the extent of counter attacking the
assailants. Everyone reacts in his own special way. There is no set rule of natural reaction. To
discard the evidence of a witness on the ground that he did not react in a particular manner is to
appreciate evidence in a wholly unrealistic and unimaginative way.”
1
Mukhera Reddi v.State of A.P, 1992
2
Rana Pratap v. State of Haryana
 Corrupt Inducement

Independent evidence may be given to prove that the witness has been bribed or has accepted the
offer of a bribe. Such a witness is not an independent witness but is one who has been hired. He
is often known as pocket witness. if this fact is proved, the witness completely loses his credit.
But it should be remembered that witness in question has been merely offered a bribe, no
inference of any sort as to the testimony of the witness can be drawn. But the demand of bribe by
the witness should be proved.

Clause 3- Former Inconsistent statements

Credit of a witness may be impeached by showing earlier statements of the witness which
contradict his present statements. It has been heldby the supreme court that previous
contradictory statements of a witness can be used to discredit only his testimony and not that of
other witnesses. Further, it is necessary that before evidence can be led of inconsistent statements
, the witness themselves should be called and have the statements put to them , so that they can
say whether they had made the statements and ,if so , in what circumstances. If a witness
disowns any statement which is inconsistent with any part of his statements made earlier , he can
be contradicted by calling the attention to those parts of the statements which are used to be used
for contradicting him. Merely asking questions in cross-examination with refrence to such
statements would not serve any purpose.

In the case of Mukhera Reddi v. State of A.P3 , The opinion of an expert witness(medical) that
lacration in the vagina of the victim was caused by violent intercourse was sought to be

3
AIR 1992
contradicted by statement of the expert in the witness in cross-examination that lacration could
because without intercourse also. The court held this not to be such a contradiction as would
annihilate the testimony of the witness in the context of the facts of the case which otherwise has
sufficient evidence to support the charge of rape.

In another case of Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration)4 ,It was held by Supreme Court
that statement made by a witness before the commission constituted under the commission
enquiries act cannot be used to subject the witness to any civil or criminal proceedings nor can it
be used against him in any civil or criminal proceedings, the exception being that he can be
prosecuted for giving false evidence. The statement to contradict him or impeach his credit is not
permissible.

If a previous statement is not put to a witness as per Section 145 of the Evidence Act the
evidence of such a witness cannot be rejected for impeaching the proof of any statement. As per
Section 155 (3) the accused must make a proper application for summoning such record under
Section 91 Cr.P.C. read with Section 145 of the Evidence Act.”

Clause 4- immoral character of prosecutrix for rape

In trials to rape or attempt to ravish commit the crime the evidence that she is a reputed prostitute
can be given for it goes long way in raising an inference that she yielded willingly.

When the prosecutrix is being subjected to long and harassing cross-examination, the supreme
court has advised the courts not to sit as silent spectator to the harassment. The courts must
safeguard the honour of the prosecutrix otherwise women victim of crimes would be compelled
to reconcile with the stroke of luck and go on tolerating vicious attacks, violently outside the
court and embarrassingly inside the court. Unbridled questioning may cause nervousness. She

4
AIR 1988
may feel isolated among strangers with nobody to save her. The court should be astute to see that
such cross-examination is not abusedor unnecessarily extended.

A witness who expresses the opinion to the court that another witness is unworthy of credit ,
shall not state the reasons for his opinion in the examination-in-chief. But he may be called upon
to explain his reasons in cross-examination. Whatever reasonshe may give shall not be
contradicted, but if the answer is false , he may proceed for giving false evidence.

Is witnessed to be cross-examined?

As seen before under section 145, evidence act, if a witness intended to be contradicted with his
previous statement in writing, the attention of the witness must be drawn to it. Though under the
terms of the present section, it is not necessary to cross-examine and confront the witness by
previous oral statement, before it can be proved, yet It is both usual and advisable and just to the
witness to first interrogate him just to give him opportunity to explain if he can.5

Tape-recording

Tape recording is admissible under section 155 sub clause(3) to impeach thecredit of the witness.
Before Tape recorded statement can be reiled upon the time and place and accuracy has to be
proved.

5
Stephen Sereverante v. The King
Section 153 and 146 and 155

Section 146 deals with questions which may be put to the witness in addition to the question that
may be put to a witness under Sections 138 to 145 of. the Evidence Act. Thus Section 146 deals
with questions lawful in cross-examination and particular clause (1) thereof provides for a
witness being cross-examined by the question put to him which tend to test his veracity. Section
153 generally deals with exclusion of evidence to contradict answers to questions testing
veracity, but exception (2) states that if a witness is asked any question tending to impeach his
impartiality and answers it by denying the facts suggested, he may be contradicted.

it cannot be said that Section 145 must be read with Section 153. Section 146 (3) provides that a
witness may be asked any question which tends to shake his credit by injuring his character. The
main Section 153 seems to have been meant to control Section 146 (3) and it seems to come into
play when a question has been put under Section 146 (3). Section 153 provides that when a
witness has been asked to answer any question which is relevant under enquiry only insofar as it
tends to shake his credit by injuring his character, no evidence shall be given to contradict him.
Thus, it is clear that clause (3) of Section 145 have to be read and must be controlled by the main
Section 153 but clause (1) of Section 145 and exception (2) to Section 153 deal with different
aspects. Under Section 146 (1) questions may be put to a witness in cross-examination to test his
veracity and, under exception (2) of Section 153 a witness may be contradicted when the denies
any question tending to impeach his impartiality.

Sections 153 and 155 must be strictly construed and narrowly interpreted, if the courts governed
by the statute are to be spared, the task in many suits of prosecuting, on most imperfect material,
issues which have no bearing upon that really in contest between the parties. A party may not, in
general, impeach the credit of his opponent's witnesses by calling witnesses to contradict him on
collateral matters, and his answers thereon will be conclusive.