Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
Section 159
Questions tending to corroborate evidence of relevant fact, admissible
When a witness whom it is intended to corroborate gives evidence of any relevant fact, he may be questioned as to any other circumstances which he observed at or near to the time or place at which such relevant fact occurred, if the Court is of opinion that such circumstances, if proved, would corroborate the testimony of the witness as to the relevant fact which he testifies. Illustration. A, an accomplice, gives an account of a robbery in which he took part. He describes various incidents unconnected with the robbery which occurred on his way to and from the place where it was committed. Independent evidence of these facts may be given in order to corroborate his evidence as to the robbery itself.
Why this exists
Courts often need extra confidence that a witness's account of a crucial event is accurate, especially with witnesses like accomplices whose testimony can be self-serving or unreliable. This provision (originally Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, now reframed in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) allows small, verifiable side-details—like what the witness saw on the way to an event—to be used as supporting proof, since truthful witnesses usually remember incidental facts accurately, while fabricators often cannot.
How courts read it
Indian courts have long held that corroboration under this type of provision does not need to relate to the crime itself but only to circumstances surrounding it, especially for accomplice testimony, which the law treats with caution. Judgments interpreting the identical earlier provision (Section 157 of the Evidence Act, 1872) emphasized that such corroborative details help satisfy the rule that accomplice evidence should not be relied upon without support (linked to Section 133 and Illustration (b) of Section 114 of the old Act, now similarly reflected in the 2023 law).
Common misconceptions
- Myth: The extra details asked about must be directly related to the crime or main fact.
Fact: They don't have to be related to the crime at all—they just need to be things the witness observed around the same time or place, which help confirm the witness was truly present and truthful. - Myth: This provision itself proves the main fact.
Fact: It doesn't prove the main fact directly; it only supports or corroborates the witness's credibility about that fact, as the court decides.