Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
Section 158
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—
(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. 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. 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.
Why this exists
Courts depend heavily on witness testimony, so the law needs fair, structured ways to test whether a witness is telling the truth. This provision (carried forward from Section 155 of the old Indian Evidence Act, 1872) creates a closed, specific list of methods—bad reputation, corruption, or self-contradiction—so that credibility attacks are principled rather than random character assassination or irrelevant mudslinging.
How courts read it
Under the predecessor provision (Evidence Act, 1872, Section 155), courts consistently held that impeaching a witness's credit is different from disproving the facts they state, and that prior inconsistent statements must be properly proved and put to the witness to be used this way. Courts also read the Explanation strictly: a witness who calls another 'unworthy of credit' cannot volunteer reasons unless cross-examined, and those cross-examination answers are treated as final for that trial, protecting witnesses from an endless side-inquiry while still allowing a separate perjury charge if lies are exposed.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: Any gossip or personal opinion can be used to attack a witness's credibility.
Fact: The law only allows specific methods: testimony from people who genuinely know the witness, proof of bribery/corruption, or proof of prior inconsistent statements—not random rumors. - Myth: If a witness explains why they think another witness is untrustworthy during cross-examination, that explanation itself must be independently proven true or false in the same case.
Fact: The Explanation says such answers cannot be contradicted in that trial, though a false answer could lead to a separate charge of giving false evidence later.