Section 156 BSA 2023: Exclusion of Evidence to Contradict Answers Testing Veracity
Section 156 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 limits the use of separate evidence to contradict a witness on collateral questions asked only to damage credibility through character allegations. It corresponds to Section 153 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Meaning and scope of Section 156
Where a witness has answered a question that matters to the case only because it may undermine the witness's credit by injuring their character, the questioner generally cannot introduce independent evidence merely to contradict that answer. A false answer may nevertheless expose the witness to proceedings for giving false evidence, subject to the applicable law and procedure.
This rule addresses collateral character questions: matters not independently relevant to proving or disproving an issue in the case. It does not prevent contradiction on a fact independently relevant to the dispute, such as whether a witness could have been present at the claimed location.
Two statutory exceptions
Exception 1: Previous conviction
If a witness denies a previous criminal conviction when questioned about it, evidence of that conviction may be produced to contradict the denial.
Exception 2: Impartiality or bias
If a witness denies facts suggested in a question aimed at impeaching impartiality, evidence may be introduced to contradict the denial. This includes evidence of hostility or bias toward a party.
Illustrations under the law
(a) Earlier allegedly fraudulent claim
An insurance claimant denies having made a fraudulent claim in a different transaction. Evidence offered solely to prove that earlier allegation is inadmissible under this rule.
(b) Dismissal for dishonesty
A witness denies being dismissed from employment for dishonesty. Evidence tendered solely to contradict that collateral answer is inadmissible.
(c) Contradiction of a material fact
A says that A saw B at Goa on a particular day. A denies being in Varanasi on that day. Evidence that A was in Varanasi is admissible because it challenges the claimed observation in Goa, not merely A's character. The older 1872 Act illustration referred to Lahore and Calcutta.
(d) Family hostility affecting impartiality
A witness denies a blood feud between the witness's family and the family of the person against whom the witness testifies. Evidence contradicting that denial may be admitted because the question concerns impartiality.
Practical effect during cross-examination
- Identify the purpose: Determine whether the question is only about character or concerns a fact independently relevant to the case.
- Avoid collateral mini-trials: A party ordinarily cannot call further evidence simply to disprove an answer to a character-based credibility question.
- Check exceptions: Previous convictions and facts indicating partiality receive different treatment under Section 156.
- Distinguish admissibility from truthfulness: Excluding contradictory evidence on a collateral matter does not authorize false testimony.
Related safeguards appear in Section 154 BSA (indecent and scandalous questions), Section 155 BSA (questions intended to insult or annoy), Section 157 BSA (questions by a party to its own witness) and Section 158 BSA (impeaching the credit of a witness).
Section 153 Evidence Act 1872 and Section 156 BSA 2023
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was repealed by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, effective 1 July 2024. Section 156 of the new law substantially carries forward the former Section 153 rule, including both exceptions and the four illustrations. The BSA modernizes the place names in illustration (c).
Under the repeal-and-savings provision in Section 170 BSA, specified applications, trials, inquiries, investigations, proceedings and appeals pending immediately before commencement continue under the former Act. The governing statute should therefore be checked against the procedural history of the particular matter.
Official legal reference
Read the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (official India Code PDF), particularly Sections 154 to 158 and 170. This article explains the provision for general legal information and does not replace case-specific professional advice.