Impeaching Credit of Witness: BSA Section 158 and Evidence Act Section 155
A witness's credit means the credibility or trustworthiness of the witness. Indian evidence law permits credibility to be challenged through specified evidence, including testimony about reliability, proof of corrupt inducement and provable inconsistent statements.
What is impeaching the credit of a witness?
To impeach credit is to question whether a witness should be believed. The purpose is to help the court evaluate the reliability of testimony, not to establish that every inconsistency automatically makes a witness dishonest. The court considers the nature of the inconsistency, its relevance and the evidence as a whole.
Section 158 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
Section 158, titled Impeaching credit of witness, authorises the adverse party to challenge credibility. The party who called the witness may do so with the consent of the court. It specifies three methods:
- Evidence of unworthiness of credit (clause a): A person who knows the witness may testify that, based on that knowledge, they believe the witness is unworthy of credit.
- Bribery or corrupt inducement (clause b): Evidence may show that the witness was bribed, accepted an offer of a bribe or received another corrupt inducement to testify.
- Earlier inconsistent statements (clause c): A former statement may be proved when inconsistent with a part of the witness's testimony that is legally liable to be contradicted.
The statutory Explanation provides that a witness who says another witness is unworthy of credit may not give the reasons for that belief during examination-in-chief. The reasons may be asked in cross-examination. Those answers cannot be contradicted, although knowingly false answers may expose the witness to proceedings for giving false evidence.
Statutory illustrations explained
Illustration (a): Delivery of goods
A sues B for the price of goods allegedly sold and delivered. C testifies that C delivered the goods to B. Evidence that C earlier said the goods were not delivered to B is admissible as a former inconsistent statement. The inconsistency bears directly on the disputed delivery.
Illustration (b): Statement about a dying declaration
A is accused of murdering B. C testifies that B, when dying, declared that A caused the fatal wound. Evidence that C previously stated that B did not make that declaration is admissible. This illustration concerns contradictory accounts by C about whether B made the declaration.
Former Section 155 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 155 of the former Act also permitted impeachment by the adverse party or, with court consent, by the party calling the witness. Its three operative methods were: evidence of a witness being unworthy of credit; proof of bribery, an accepted bribe offer or other corrupt inducement; and proof of former statements inconsistent with evidence liable to contradiction.
The former provision contained an Explanation restricting the reasons that a witness could initially give for declaring another witness unworthy of credit. Its illustration (a) concerned contradictory statements about delivery of goods. Its illustration (b) concerned contradictory statements in a murder prosecution about the source of the deceased's wound. The current BSA illustration (b) is framed differently, focusing on whether the deceased made the alleged dying declaration.
Legislative history: Former clause (4) of Section 155 was omitted by the Indian Evidence (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Act 4 of 2003), with effect from 31 December 2002. It is not an operative method under Section 158 BSA. Earlier textual amendment notes concerning acceptance of a bribe are historical, not separate present-day requirements.
How are inconsistent statements used in court?
A party seeking to contradict a witness should identify the material inconsistency and follow the applicable rules on cross-examination and proof of previous statements. Section 148 BSA governs cross-examination as to previous written statements, including the requirement to draw attention to the relevant portions before proving the writing for contradiction. The court must also apply other admissibility and procedural safeguards. Not every difference in wording is a material contradiction.
Where a party wishes to question its own witness in the manner of cross-examination, former Section 154 of the Evidence Act corresponds to Section 157 BSA. Permission to cross-examine one's own witness does not by itself erase all useful portions of that witness's evidence.
Which law applies after 1 July 2024?
| Legal provision | Application |
|---|---|
| BSA Section 158 | Current provision on impeaching witness credibility under the BSA. |
| Indian Evidence Act Section 155 | Former corresponding provision, continuing for matters covered by the savings clause. |
| BSA Section 170(2) | Preserves the former Act for applications, trials, inquiries, investigations, proceedings and appeals pending immediately before commencement, as specified in the section. |
Frequently asked questions
Can a party challenge its own witness?
Yes, with the consent of the court under Section 158 BSA. Separate permission under Section 157 BSA may be relevant where the party seeks to put questions normally used in cross-examination.
Does an inconsistent statement automatically discredit a witness?
No. The statement must be relevant and proved in accordance with the applicable law. The court evaluates its significance along with the other evidence.
Can proof of bribery affect a witness's credibility?
Yes. Section 158(b) expressly permits proof of bribery, acceptance of an offer of a bribe or another corrupt inducement to give evidence.