Introduction

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.1 The court has always the power to
recall a witness at any stage of the proceeding and to put any
questions in any form.2
Who is a credible witness?
Crediblewitnessisapersonmakingtestimonyinacourtorothertribunal,oracting
otherwiseasawitness,whosecredibilityisunimpeachable.Awitnessmayhavemore
orlesscredibility,ornocredibilityatall.Inthecommonlawsystem,theterm
'crediblewitness'maybeusedgenerally,torefertotestimony,orforthewitnessingof
certaindocuments.Severalfactorsaffectwitnesses'credibility.Acrediblewitnessis
"competenttogiveevidence,andisworthyofbelief.3Generally,awitnessisdeemed
tobecredibleiftheyarerecognized(orcanberecognized)asasourceofreliable
informationaboutsomeone,anevent,oraphenomenon.

ImpeachingcreditofwitnessundertheEvidenceAct
Thecreditofawitnessmaybeimpeachedinthefollowingwaysbytheadverseparty,
or,withtheconsentoftheCourt,bythepartywhocallshim:

1 Kamal vs. State AIR 1959 Cal.342

2 Management of Glaxo India Ltd. Vs. State of Assam (1995) 2 Gau LR 224
3Peckv.Chambers,44W.Va.270,28S.E.706;Savagev.Bulger(Kyj77S.W.717:Amoryv.
Fellowes,5Mass.228;Baconv.Bacon,17Pick.(Mass.)134;Robinsonv.Savage,124111.266,15N.
E.850.

(1)bytheevidenceofpersonswhotestifythatthey,fromtheirknowledgeofthe
witnessbelievehimtobeunworthyofcredit;

(2)byproofthatthewitnesshasbeenbribed,orhas 90[accepted]theofferofabride,
orhasreceivedanyothercorruptinducementtogivehisevidence;

(3)byproofofformerstatementsinconsistentwithanypartofhisevidencewhichis
liabletobecontradicted;

(4)Whenamanisprosecutedforrapeoranattempttoravish,itmaybeshownthat
theprosecutrixwasofgenerallyimmoralcharacter.

ExplanationAwitnessdeclaringanotherwitnesstobeunworthyofcreditmaynot,
uponhisexaminationinchief,givereasonsforhisbelief,buthemaybeaskedhis
reasonsincrossexamination,andtheanswerswhichhegivescannotbecontradicted,
though,iftheyarefalse,hemayafterwardsbechargedwithgivingfalseevidence.

Illustrations

(a)AsuesBforthepriceofgoodssoldanddeliveredtoB.Csaysthathedelivered
thegoodstoB.
Evidenceisofferedtoshowthat,onapreviousoccasion,hesaidthathehaddelivered
goodstoB.

Theevidenceisadmissible.

(b)AisindicatedforthemurderofB.
CsaysthatB,whendying,declaredthatAhadgivenBthewoundofwhichhedied.
Evidenceisofferedtoshowthat,onapreviousoccasion,Csaidthatthewoundwas
notgivenbyAorinhispresence.
Theevidenceadmissible.
The credit of a witness may be impeached in the following ways: (a) by cross
examination;4 that is, by eliciting from the witness himself facts disparaging to him;
(b)by calling witness to disprove his testimony on material points.5 The credit of a
witness is, of course, indirectly impeached by evidence disproving the facts which he
has asserted; (c) by eliciting in cross-examination, or if denied, independently
proving, the partiality or previous conviction of a witness6, or that he has been bribed,
or made previous inconsistent statements, or the immoral character of the witness, if

4Seesection138,140,14554
5Underss5;Taylor,Evidence,p.140
6Section153

she be prosecutrix in a trial for rape;7 (d) by independent proof that the witness bears
such a reputation as to be unworthy of credit.8
This classification thought corresponding with that generally given in the English textbooks, is not that adopted by the Act, which deals with the above mentioned matters
under the clause of:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)

cross examination;9
contradiction;10
impeachment of credit.11

(i) Cross Examination may or may not have the effect of impeaching the credit of the
witness, a results which depends upon the nature of the questions put to the witness
and the answers which he gives to them.
(ii) A distinction may be drawn between contradicting a witness and impeaching the
credit. Where the facts stated by the witness are relevant to issue, evidence may
always be given to contradict them under the provisions of sec.156.12 If the fact be
one which is not relevant to the suit or proceeding, except in so far as it affects the
credit of the witness, no evidence is admissible in contradiction except in two
specified cases.13
(iii) Lastly, the impeachment of a credit of witness is considered and set apart from
both cross-examination and contradiction, apparently because, under the Act, a
witnesss credit may be impeached upon a point, which there has been no crossexamination and therefore no room for contradiction.
The testimony of a witness may not be rejected merely on the ground that certain
criminal proceeding are pending against him and that he has a shady and doubtful
character. His testimony must be scrutinized on his own merit, keeping in view and
paying due consideration to the fact of his in certain criminal proceedings. In cases of
bribe, direct testimony of wholly disinterested strangers as eye - witnesses can
seldom be forthcoming. It is accordingly, either circumstantial evidence or the
evidence of trap witnesses, which is usually available in such cases. The testimony
of police officers and of persons associated with traps may not be unceremoniously
ruled out as tainted without scrutiny. It should be considered in the light of all the
attending circumstances, and, if it impresses the Court as credible, it may be
accepted.14 In prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 the
testimony of police officials cannot be rejected merely because they are interested in

7Section155cll(2),(3),(4)
8Section155cl(1)
9Sections138,140,145,15254
10Section5,153
11Section155
12Cunningham,Evidence,p.372.Itwasobserved:TheBombayCourtinRvs.SakharamMukhandji
187411BomHCR,169appeartoconsidertheprovisionofIndianEvidenceActfortheContradiction
ofwitnesses,islessextensivethanthatofEnglishlaw.

13Section153,Exceptions(1)and(2)

the success of the prosecution.15 The testimony of police officials cannot be

underestimated merely because they are police officials.16 Such testimony deserves
consideration by courts in the light of all the attending circumstances, and if it
impresses the Court as credible, it can safely be accepted for basing a conviction
thereon.
In view of the embargo by Sec. 6, Commission of Enquiry Act, 1952 the statement of
a witness recorded in a enquiry before the commission cannot be used at the trial for
the purposes of cross-examination to impeach his credit.17
No presumption adverse to a witness can be drawn against him without giving him an
opportunity to explain features complained of.18
Impeaching credit of a witness, either under Sec.145 (written statement) or under the
present section (oral statement) can be done by drawing his attention to those
statements, whether written or oral.19
Normally, the testimony of witness given on oath is presumed to be true and lies on
the party challenging that testimony to show that the witness is not creditworthy and
that his testimony should not be accepted.20
Tape - Recordings are not inadmissible in evidence merely for the reason that they
are capable of being tampered with. 21
The evidence of photographs, ordinarily cannot be used to contradict the eye witness
account, the evidence of panch as well as an investigating officer.22

Scope
Section155cannotbeconstruedasanexceptiontoSec.52.Thetwosectionsdeal
withdifferentmatters,Sec.52prohibitscharacterevidenceinregardtothesubject
matterofthesuit,whereasthissectionprescribesthemannerofimpeachingthecredit
ofawitness.23Section146and155arenotinconflictwitheachother,ss138,140,
14RamSarupCharnSinghvsStateAIR1967Del.2627,1967Cr.Lj744.
15Statevs.RagunathBaxi(1985)1Guj.LR1988
16StateofAssamvs.MuhimBarkalkiAIR1987SC98
17KeharSinghvsState(Del.Admin)AIR1988SC1883
18SachindranathChatterjeevsNilima74CWN168
19DomanMahtonvsSurajdeoPrasadAIR1970
20ShersinghvsStateofRajasthan(1987)2RajLR164
21PartapSinghvsStateofPunjabAIR1964SC72
22StateofGujaratvs.Bharat1991Cr.Lj978(Guj.)
23GHussenaiabvBYerraiahAIR1954AP39,(1954)2MLJ(AP)39

145and154provideforimpeachingthecreditofawitnessbycrossexamination.In
particular,Sec.146permitsquestionsinjuringthecharacterofawitnesstobeputto
himincrossexamination.Thissectionlaysdownadifferentmethodofdiscreditinga
witnessbyallowingindependentevidencetobeadduced.24Theruleswithregardto
impeachmentofwitnessesapplytobothcriminalandcivilcases,andbythetermsof
thissection,thesameimpeachingevidencemaybegiveninthecasebothofthe
adversarysandthepartysownwitness.Thissectionlaysdownfourdifferentways
inwhichthecreditofawitnessmaybeimpeached,whichmaynotbedonebythe
party,whocallshim,exceptwiththeleaveofthecourt.25Astothecasesinwhicha
partymaydiscredithisownwitness,seethenotestotheprecedingsection.Itistobe
hereabsorbedthatthoughthissectionrendersformerstatementrelevantonlyto
contradictornegativethestatementsmadepreviously,yetsection287,Cr.PC
(omittedfromthenewcode)goesfurtherinmakingpreviousstatementbeforethe
committingMagistrateevidenceinthecase,thatis,substantiveevidenceofthe
factsthereindisposedto.26
Aformerstatementofapersondoesnotceasetobehisstatementmerelybecauseit
wasrecordedbytheorderofthecourtwhichhasnojurisdiction.EveniftheCourthas
notpassedtheorderforrecordingthestatementandthestatementisrecorded,sucha
statementcanbeusedforthepurposesofSec.155,EvidenceAct.27
Aletterwrittenbyawitnessisnoevidenceofthefactsmentionedtherein,specially
whenitisnotputtohimandheisnotgivenopportunitytocontradictorexplainthe
same.28
Sec.138,155EvidenceAct,requirethatexaminationandcrossexaminationmust
relatetorelevantfacts.29
Astatementcontainedinthetaperecordisevidenceandisadmissiblenotonlyasa
primaryevidencebutalsotocorroboratethewitnessortocontradicthisprevious
statement,totesthisveracityortoimpeachhiscredibility.30
Clause(1)
Independentevidencemaybegiventoanadversarys(orwiththeleaveoftheCourta
partysown)witnessbearssuchageneralreputationforuntruthfulness,orperhapsfor
24Section145doesnotcontrolsec155;RamRathanvStateAIR1956Raj196
25ProfullaKumarSarkarwashisEmporarILR581464,53CLJ427
26MarutiShindevsEmperorAIR1922Bom108
27StateofPunjabvsVishwajitSinghAIR1987
28AbhaAstavansvsSureshAstavansAIR1984
29GaneshJadhavvsStateofAssam(1995)1GauLR111
30JThirupathaiahvsK.SubbaRao(1983)1APLJ(HC)

moralturpitudegenerally,31thatheisunworthyofcredit.InIndia,ithasbeenheld
thatthissectiondoesnotallowevidenceofawitnesssgeneralbadcharactertobe
broughtin.32AccordingtothetheoryofEnglishlaw,suchevidenceshouldrelateto
generalreputationonlyandnotexpressthemereopinionoftheimpeachingwitness.It
isnotsufficientthattheimpeachingwitnessshouldprofessmerelytostatewhathe
hasheardotherssay;forthosemaybebutfew.Hemustbeabletostatewhatis
generallysaidofthepersonbythoseamongwhomhedwells,orbythosewhoheis
chieflyconversant;foritisthisonlywhichconstituteshisgeneralreputation.Though,
asabsorbed,theEnglishtheoryrequiresthatthewitnessshouldnotexpresshisown
opinion,yet,inpractice,theregularmodeofexaminingistoaskthewitnesswhether
heknowsthegeneralreputationamongthepersonsneighborsandwhatthe
reputationis,andthenwhetherfromsuchknowledgehewouldbelievetheperson
whoseveracityisimpeached,uponhisoath.33Theexplanationtothissectionisin
accordancewiththeEnglishlawuponthepoint.Theimpeachingwitnesscannot,
indirectexamination,givetheparticularinstancesoftheothersfalsehood,or
dishonesty,butuponcrossexaminationhemaybeaskedastohismeansof
knowledgeoftheotherwitness,hisfeelings,ifany,towardshimandthelike:andthe
answerstothesequestioncannotbecontradicted.34Whereawitnesssveracityhas
beenattacked,hiscreditmaybereestablishedbythecrossexaminationofimpeaching
witnessorbyindependentgeneralevidencethattheimpeachedwitnessisworthyof
credit,andthepartywhosewitnesshasbeenattachedmayrecriminate,thatis,the
impeachingwitnessmayinhisturnbeattackedeitherincrossexaminationorby
independentgeneralevidencewithaviewtoshowthatheisunworthyofcreditbutno
furtherrecriminationthanthisisprobablyallowable.35Wherethegeneralreputation
ofthewitnessfortruthandveracityisprovedtobebad,thecourtmayproperly
disregardhisevidence,exceptinsofarasheiscorroboratedbyothercredible
testimony.36Thequestion,whetherawitnessisentitledtocreditornot,
Mustbedecidedbyacourtontheevidencebeforeit,andnotonwhatanothercourt
thoughtofthewitnessinanothercase.37Thefactthatawitnesswasnotbelievedina
judgmentinanothercasecannotbeusedagainsthiminasubsequentcase.Aformer
judgmentinanothercasecannotbegiveninevidenceforthepurposeofimpeaching
thecreditofawitness.38
31Taylor,Evidence,p.1471viewisthattheinquiryneednotberesistedtoreputationforveracity,
butmayinvolvewitnesssentiremoralcharacter,theoppositepartybeingatlibertytoenquirewhether
inspiteofbadcharacter,theimpeachedwitnesshasnotpreservedhisreputationfortruth.

32MaungSanMyinvsEmperorAir1930
33Taylor,Evidence,p1470
34SirJFStephen,DigestofEvidencevol.1,thirdedn.
35Taylor,Evidencep.1473
36Butt,Jones,Evidence,p.866
37ChandreshwarPrasadvsBisheshwarPratapAIR1927
38KarunakaranvsSrinivasan(1958)

Aninferenceagainstcredibilityofawitnesscannotbelegitimatelydrawnwithout
anybodygoingintothewitnessboxinthemannercontemplatedbycl(1).39
Whereawitnesshavebeenallegedtobehostilebutwasnotcrossexamined,he
cannotbecondemned.40
Clause(2)
Clause(2)runshasacceptedtheofferofabribebutwasoriginallyframedhashad
theofferofabribe.Thesubstitutionwasprobablygroundedupontherulingisthe
caseofAttorneyGeneralvsHitchcock,41whereitwasheldthatthefactthatthe
witnesshasacceptedabribetotestifymay,ifdenied,beproved,thoughamere
admissionbythewitnessthathehasbeenofferedabribecannotprovethesame,
PollockCBremarkingthatitwasnodisparagementtoamanthatabribeisafferedto
him,thoughitmaybeadisparagementtothepersonwhomakestheoffer.42
Clause (3)
The witness may be impeached by former statements inconsistent
with any part of his evidence which is liable to be contradicted. See
Illusts (a) and (b)43 in the under mentioned case,44 Wilson J Said:
I am inclined to think that in the third clause of s 155 of the
evidence Act, the words which is a liable to be contradicted mean
which is relevant to the issue.
The last cited proposition, according to the Supreme Court, is stated
so broadly.45Any statements verbal as well as written, may be used
for this purpose; but, where the statement is in writing, the
provisions of s 145, should be followed. In fact, though it is not so
expressly laid down and required by the act, in the case of verbal
statements,46 the witness should always, if possible, be specifically
asked whether he made such and such a statement before he is
39DinkarBandhuvsState72BomLR405
40RatanLalvsStateofM.P.1993
41ExR91
42Seehowever,criticisminCunningham,Evidencepp.37273
43ArnupvsKedarNathAIR1925
44KhadijahvsAddool(1899)17Cal344,346
45NSriRamaReddyvsV.V.GiriAIR1971
46Taylor,Evidence,p.1445;Wharton,Evidence,p.555

contradicted through another witness. A document though not in the

parts, is admissible to prove the possession and title to the property,
if it is used as corroboration for the oral evidence of the executant of
the document.47 A recital in the deed which becomes admissible
under Sec.157 to corroborate the testimony can also be used under
this section to contradict such testimony.56 The handwriting of a
witness is not his former statements within the meaning of cl.(3) of
the section and evidence of writing cannot be let in under this
section as other independent evidence for the purpose of
impeaching his credit.48
It is always relevant to put to a witness any question which, if
answered in a affirmative would qualify contradict some previous
part of his testimony given in the trial of the issue; and if such
question be put and be answered in the negative, the opposite party
may then contradict the witness, and for the simple reason that the
contradiction would qualify to contradict the previous part of the
witness testimony and so neutralize the effect. 49 On the principle
just pointed out, if a case be such as to render the evidence of
opinion admissible and material, the witness, on cross examination,
be asked whether he has not on some particular occasion express a
different opinion upon the same subject, and if he denies the fact, it
may be proved by other evidence. By the previous opinion as to the
merits of the case of a witness who has simply testified to fact
cannot be regarding as relevant to the issue an cannot therefore
cannot be given in evidence.50 Evidence of previous statements
made by a previous witness whose good faith has not been
questioned by the crown, cannot be given without previous cross
examination of the witness as too such statements. Such procedure
is both undesirable and not permitted by Sec. 154 and 155.51
When it is intended to throw discredit upon the evidence of any
witness nothing is more common in practice (especially in criminal
cases) then for the counsel for the defense to prove, if it can be
proved, get the witness as previously made statements inconsistent
with the evidence at the trial. When this fact is satisfactorily
established, the court cannot but regard the evidence of such
witness with suspicion, and the fact is established by the evidence
of anyone to whom such statements were made, or in where
presence or hearing they where made. 52 As to statements reduced
47MohinchandravsKanailalAIR1930Call311
48KirnchandraPalvsBhondu1970MPWR899,902
49Taylor,Evidence,p.1445;
50Ibid
51MaftavsStateofHaryanaAIR2002
52RvsUttamchand(1874)11BomHCR12021

to writing by the police officer under Sec 162, Cr.PC, an as to first

information see the undernoted case. 53 If there is a report which is
found to have been made quite independently of and in no relation
to any pending investigation, was not decide to promote a pending
investigation, was not designed to promote a pending investigation,
and had no reference at all to the investigation which had in fact
already begun, is a document admissible for the purpose of
corroborating the evidence of its maker.54The former statement
need not be signed.55
The very purpose of re-examination is to explain matters which have
been brought down in cross-examination. There is an erroneous
impression that re-examination should be confined to clarification of
ambiguities which have been brought down in cross-examination.
No doubt, ambiguities can be resolved through re-examination. But
that is not the only function of the re-examiner if the party who
called the witness feels that explanation is required for any matter
referred to in cross-examination, he has the liberty to put any
question in the examination to get the explanation. The public
prosecutor should formulate his questions for the purpose.
Explanation may be required either ambiguity remains regarding
any answer litigated during cross examination or even otherwise. If
the public prosecutor feels that certain answers require more
elucidation from the witness. He has the freedom and the control of
the court in accordance with the other provisions. But the court
cannot him to confine his ambiguities alone which rose in crossexamination. Even if the public prosecutor feels that new matter
should be elicited from the witness, he can do so, in which case the
only requirement is that he must secure permission from the court.
If the court thinks that such new matter is necessary for proving any
material fact, courts must be liberal in granting permission to put
necessary questions a public prosecutor who is attentive during
cross-examination, cannot be sensitive to discern which answer in
cross-examination requires explanation an a efficient public
prosecutor would gather up such answers falling from the mouth of
a witness during cross-examination and formulate necessary
questions to be put in the re-examination. There is no warrant that
re-examinations should be limited to one or two questions. if the
exigency requires, any number of questions can be asked in the reexamination.
When an eye witness is examined at length, it is quite possible for
him to make discrepancies. No true witness can possibly escape
from making some discrepant details. Perhaps, an un-true witness,
53AzimuddyvsRAIR1927Cal17,ILR
54TikaRamvsStateAIR1957
55NarayananvsKrishanan1981KerLT(SN)26

who is well tutored can successfully make his testimony totally non
discrepant. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when
discrepancies in the evidence of the witness as so incompatible with
the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisoning
his evidence. But too serious a view to be adopted on mere
variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between
the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the
same witness) is an unreliable approach for judicial scrutiny.
It is a common practice in trial courts to make our contradiction
from previous statement of a witness for confronting him during
cross-examination. Merely because there is inconsistency in
evidence, it is not sufficient to impair the credit of the witness. No
doubts Sec 155, evidence act, provides scope for impeaching a
credit of a witness by proof of inconsistent former statement. But a
reading of a Sec would indicate that all inconsistent statement are
not sufficient to impeach the credit of the witness. A former
statement, though seemingly inconsistent with the evidence, need
not necessarily be sufficient to amount to contradiction would effect
the credit of the witness. Sec. 145, Evidence Act, also enabled the
cross examiner to use any former statement of the witness, but it
cautions that if it is intended to contradict the witness the cross
examiner is enjoined to comply with the formality prescribed that in.
Sec. 162 of court also permits that cross-examination use the
previous statement of witness (recorded under Sec 162 of the code)
for the only limited purpose; that is to Contradict the witness. To
contradict a witness, therefore must be to discredit the particular
version of the witness. Unless former statement even if the latter is
at variants with the former to some extent, it would not be helpful to
contradict that witness.
In the instant case, the evidence of the conductor and the driver of
the bus evinces credibility. They are the most natural witness for the
murder which took place inside the bus. The minor variation which
the defense counsel discovered from their former statements did
not amount to discredit the core of their evidence. The strained
reasoning of this trial court for sight stepping their evidence is to
fragile for jury countenance. Therefore, their testimony cannot be
rejected.56
There is no rule of evidence which prevents a defendant an
endeavoring to shake the credit of a witness by proof of former
inconsistence statements, from deposing that while he was engaged
with conversation with the witness, a tape recorder was in
operation, or from producing the said tape recorder in support of the
assertion that a certain statement was made in his presence. 57 A
tape recorded statements is also admissible under Sec 155 to
56SajjanKumarsStateofM.P.1999SCCr.LJ4561

contradict the evidence given by the witness in court, to test the

veracity of the witness and to show that he is not an impartial
witness.58 As to the use of previous statement under Sec 228,Cr Pc
(omitted from the new code),59where a witness made a statement
before the cotoner, it was held admissible for the purpose of
impugning his credit, the accused should have had an opportunity
to cross-examine him. Previous statement put in to contradict a
witness can be used only for the purpose of contradicting him and
not as substantial evidence of the identification of a person. If an
arresting witness is dead, his depositions in a prior judicial
proceeding would be relevant and admissible, if the prior judicial
proceeding was between the same party and adverse party in that
proceeding had the right and opportunity to cross-examine him an
the question in issue is substantially the same. But, if the witness,
being alive, is examined in the present proceeding, his prior
deposition are not available as substantive evidence but can only be
used to contradict or corroborate his present statement.60
The credit of a witness can be impeached by proof of any statement
which is inconsistent with any part of his evidence in court. This
principle is delineated in Sec 155(3), IEA 1872, and it must be borne
in mind when reading Sec 145 which consists of two limbs. It is
provided in the first limb of Sec 145 that a witness may be crossexamined as to previous statement made by him without such
writing being shown to him. But the second limb provides that if it
is intended to contradict him by the writing his attention must,
before the writing can be proved, be called to those parts of it which
are used for the purpose for contradicting him. There is thus a
distinction between the two vivid limbs, though subtle it may be.
The first limb does not envisage impeaching the credit of a witness,
but it merely enables the opposite party to cross-examine the
witness with reference to the previous statements made by him. He
may at that stage succeed in elicting materials to his benefit
through such cross-examination even without restorting to the
procedure laid down in the second limb. But if the witness disowns
having made any statement which is inconsistent with his present
stand, his testimony in court on that score would not be vitiated
until the cross-examiner proceeds to comply with the procedure
prescribed in the second limb Sec 145.61

57RupChandvsMahabirPrasadAIR1956Punj173
58
59
60
61

(d) Clause 4
The Act, as originally drafted, contained the following, additional
section relating to the subject of character:
In trials for rape or attempts to commit rape, the fact that the
woman on whom the alleged offence was committed is common
prostitute, or that her conduct was generally unchaste is relevant.
It was, however, thought unnecessary to retain this as a separate
section, and it was accordingly incorporated with the present one. In
the case now mentioned, evidence is receivable not so much to
shake the credit of the witness as to show directly that the act in
question has not been committed.
Thus on indictment for rape, or attempts to commit that crime, not
only is evidence of general bad character admissible under the first
clause to show that the prosecutrix ought not be believed upon he
oath, but so also is proof that she is reputed prostitute, for it goes
far towards raising inference that she yielded willingly. In such
cases, general evidence of this kind will, on this ground, be received
though, the women not called as a witness, and though, if called,
she be not asked, n cross examination, any questions in cross
examination tending to impeach her character for chastity. Counsel
for defense cannot, however, prove specific immoral acts with the
prisoner, unless he has first given the prosecutrix, an opportunity of
denying or explaining them. Moreover, the prosecutrix, if crossexamined as to particular acts of immorality with other men, may
decline to answer such questions, while if she answers them in the
negative, witnesses cannot be called to contradict her.62
If the fact in issue was concerning the paternity of the child perhaps
some relevance to the moral life of his mother could have been
assumed but in the murder case where the mother of the child gave
evidence that her son was murdered, there is little scope for
conduction an injury into the moral life of the mother. Law does not
merit even the child of a prostitute to be murdered. The murderer in
such a case cannot escape by establishing that the mother of a child
was of loose morals. The evidence of the defense was therefore
quite unnecessary and irrelevant. The HC erred in relying on such
testimony and reversing a testimony well-merited conviction.63

62
63

Re-Establishment Credit: Recrimination:

The act does not in terms provided for either of these, but, as
already observed,64according to English practice, when a witnesss
character for truth at veracity has been directly impeached, and the
character of the impeaching witness for truth and veracity may itself
be attacked.
A direct impeachment of a moral character by testimony (reputation
of personal opinion) to a general trait of character plainly satisfies
the rule and opens the way for opposite party to rehabilitate his
witness by testimony. No one has ever doubted this.65
When a collateral attack admits sustaining testimony, that is,
whether such a course is open where the witness is attacked upon
the other ground. Mentioned in this sec. 153 and 146, is a matter
upon which there has been conflict in the reported cases here
referred to.66 It has been held in America that a witnesss character
so far impeached by putting in evidence his conviction of felony, it is
not admissible of his good reputation for truth. it is a matter of
doubt, whether such testimony can be received merely upon proof
of prior conflicting statements of the witness or upon the eliciting of
answers disparaging to the witness cross-examination. On the other
hand, it has been said that where a opposing case is that the
witness testified under corrupt motives, this being involved in the
attack on his credibility, it is but proper that such evidence should
be rebutted.67 But, inIndia, it has been held with specific reference to
the section as well as sec.146 and 148, that the credit of the witness
can be said to have been shaken only, if it can be shown that he is
not a man of veracity and not that he is otherwise and undesirable
person, such as a black marketer. The arguments for admission of
rebutting testimony to good character in all cases is, that since the
object of the attack is to impeach the witness, the mood of such
attack is immaterial, and that the same reason exists for sustaining
the witness, as where witnesses are called to testify directly to his
bad reputation; on the other hand it is said that the admissibility of
the evidence in all cases may lead to confusion and the multiplicity
of collateral issues. It is, of course, clear that in any case, and as a
general rule, a party cannot fortify the credit of his witness by
providing good character for truth until the credibility of the witness
has been assailed.
64
65
66
67

DifferencebetweenEnglishandIndianLaw
Thequestionofclassificationis,however,ofnogreatpracticalimportance,asthe
provisionofthissectionareinsubstantialaccordancewiththoseofEnglishlawonthe
point,thoughitisusefultobearitinmind,inordertoavoidtheconfusionwhichis
notunlikelytoresultfromthenovelviewofthematterpresentedbythisAct.Thetwo
mainpointsuponwhichthissectiondiffersfromEnglishlawarethat,underthefirst
clause,apartymaydiscredithisownwitnessbyproofofsuchareputationasrenders
himunworthyofbelief,whichmaynotbedoneinEnglandandthatapparentlyitis
notnecessaryunderthethirdclausetolayafoundationbytheinterrogationofwitness
forthesubsequentevidenceinproofofthepreviousinconsistentstatements.68Under
theEnglishlaw,apartyisnotpermittedtoimpeachthecreditofhisownwitnessby
generalevidenceofhisbadcharacter,shadyantecedentsorpreviousconviction.In
India,thiscanbedonewiththeconsentofthecourtunderSec.155oftheAct.69In
England,further,apartymaygiveproofofsuchstatement,byhisownwitnessonly
wherethewitnessisintheopinionofthejudge,adverse.Andthoughdoubtless,the
Englishpracticewillbeinlargenumberofcasesfollowedinthisrespect,yetitshould
berememberedthattheActhasleftthediscretionofthecourtwhollyunfettered,
eithertoallowordisallowsuchimpeachmentasjusticeandparticularcircumstanceof
eachcasemayrequire.Theimportanceofthesectionliesinthisthatis,by
implication,restrictstheevidencewhichmaybegiven(otherwisethaninthe
exceptionalcasesmentionedinsec.153)toimpeachawitnessscredittothat
specifiedinthesection.70UndertheEnglishLaw,apartycallingthewitnesscancross
examineandcontradictawitnessinrespectofhispreviousinconsistentstatement
withtheleaveofthecourtonlywhenthecourtconsidersthewitnesstobeadverse.
NosuchconditionhasbeenlaiddowninSec.154or155oftheIndianEvidenceAct,
1872,andthegrantofsuchleavehasbeenleftcompletelytothediscretionofthe
court,theexerciseofwhichisnotfetteredbydependentuponthehostile,or
adversenessofthewitness.Inthisrespect,theIndianEvidenceActisinadvanceof
theEnglishlaw.71
68Section145
69A.P.RaovsState1990SCCrR139(A.P)
70W.Markby,ElementsofLaw,Vol.9,Little,Brown&Co.,Boston1940,pg.109
71A.P.RaovsState1990SCCr.R139,142(A.P.)

Itisnotthelawthateachandeverywitnesswhohasseentheoccurrencemustbe
examinedbytheprosecution.Wherethewitnesswhoisthefirstpersontonarrate
abouttheoccurrencehasbeenwonoverbytheaccused,andtheprosecutionmoves
applicationbeforethecourtnarratingthisfact,thenonexaminationofsuchaneye
witnessisnotfataltotheprosecution.72
Aformalwitnesswhosimplyproveshissignatureontheseizurelistandthematerial
exhibitscannotbedeclaredhostile.73
Credibility of Witnesses Positive Rulings by the Court
Credibility of Deaf and dumb witness
In State of Rajasthan vs Darshan Singh ( Cr. Appeal No. 870 of 2007), issue
pertaining to admissibility and credibility of a deaf and dumb witness arose for
consideration. The Bench held that a dumb person need not be prevented from being
a credible and reliable witness merely due to his/her physical disability. Such a person
though unable to speak may convey himself through writing if literate or through
signs and gestures if he is unable to read and write. The Bench further held that a
deaf and dumb person is a competent witness.
Credibility of a Child Witness
As a matter of prudence courts often show cautiousness while putting absolute
reliance on the evidence of a solitary child witness and look for corroboration of the
same from the facts and circumstances in the case, the Privy Council decision in R v.
Norbury, where the evidence of the child witness of 6 years, who herself was the
victim of rape, was admitted. Here the court observed that a child may not understand
the nature of an oath but if he is otherwise competent to testify and understand the
nature of the questions put before him and is able to give rational answers thereto,
then the statement of such a child witness would be held to be admitted and no
corroborative proof is necessary. The Supreme Court in Tahal Singh v. Punjab,
observed:
In our country, particularly in rural areas it is difficult to think of a lad of 13 year as a
child. A vast majority of boys around that age go in fields to work. They are certainly
capable of understanding the significance of the oath and necessity to speak the truth.
In this regard a very important observation has been made in Jarina Khatun v. State of
Assam, that the Trial Court is the best judge in the matter of deciding the competency
of such a witness as there, the child himself appears before the court. Therefore it has
an opportunity to see him, notice his demeanours, record his evidence and thereafter
on scrutiny accepted his testimony.
72RamasisMahatovsStateofBihar1986PLJR623(Pat)(DB)
73S.K.N.SinhavsStateofBihar19941Pat.LJR264

Credibility of an Expert Witness

An expert is not a witness of fact. His evidence is really of an advisory character.
The duty of an expert witness is to furnish the judge with the necessary scientific
criteria for testing the accuracy of the conclusion so as to enable the judge to form his
independent judgment by the application of this criteria to the facts proved by the
evidence of the case. The scientific opinion evidence, if intelligible, convincing and
tested becomes a factor and along with the other evidence of the case. The credibility
of such a witness depends on the reasons stated in support of his conclusions and the
data furnished which form the basis of his conclusions State of H.P. vs Jai Lal AIR
1999 SCC 3318C
Credibility of Eye Witness
In Kartik Malhar v. State of Bihar, (1996) 1 SCC 614conviction can be recorded on
the basis of the statement of a single eye witness provided his credibility is not shaken
by any adverse circumstance appearing on the record against him and the court, at the
same time, is convinced that he is a truthful witness. The court will not then insist on
corroboration by any other eye witness particularly as the incident might have
occurred at a time or place when there was no possibility of any other eye witness
being present. Indeed, the courts insist on the quality, and, not on the quantity of
evidence.
Suggestions :
If you are a Lawyer:

Avoid those who are unreliable or dishonest - judges do not warm to such
characters.

Try to avoid those who have a tendency to crack under pressure. In the
witness box they can come across as contradictory and unsure, which will
create doubt in the judges mind.

If you are acting as a witness:

Check and then check again your witness statement.

If you are giving evidence, make sure you are happy that the contents
of your witness statement are all true and correct.

If lawyers have drafted it for you, make sure you understand and are
comfortable with the wording that has been used.

When giving a statement or oral evidence in court, state the facts as

they are or as you recall: do not just say what you think your party
wants you to say. If you cannot remember something, say so.

Do not lie:

Whether intentionally or not, avoid trying to mould your evidence to your

partys case. You may damage your credibility as a witness and, worse,
damage your partys case.