IEA 153→BSA 156

IEA 153 to BSA 156: Exclusion of evidence to contradict answers to questions testing veracity

Section 153 IEA (1872) replaced by Section 156 BSA (2023)

View IEA Section 153 →View BSA Section 156 →

IEA 153 to BSA 156 at a Glance

Section 153 IEA (Exclusion of evidence to contradict answers to questions testing veracity) is now Section 156 BSA, in force from 1 July 2024. Only the section number changed.

What Changed From IEA 153 to BSA 156?

Section 153 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 became Section 156 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 on 1 July 2024. No substantive change. Illustrations use other place names, with small spelling edits.

IEA 153 vs BSA 156: Comparison Table

AspectIEA 1872 (repealed)BSA 2023 (in force)
Section153156
HeadingExclusion of evidence to contradict answers to questions testing veracitySame

IEA 153 and BSA 156: Bare Act Text Side by Side

IEA 1872 (repealed)

Section 153, IEA 1872

153. Exclusion of evidence to contradict answers to questions testing veracity.—When a witness has been asked and has answered any question which is relevant to the inquiry only in so far as it tends to shake his credit by injuring his character, no evidence shall be given to contradict him; but, if he answers falsely, he may after wards be charged with giving false evidence. Exception 1.—If a witness is asked whether he has been previously convicted of any crime and denies it, evidence may be given of his previous conviction. Exception 2.—If a witness is asked any question tending to impeach his impartiality, and answers it by denying the facts suggested, he may be contradicted. Illustrations (a) A claim against an underwriter is resisted on the ground of fraud. The claimant is asked whether, in a former transaction, he had not made a fraudulent claim. He denies it. Evidence is offered to show that he did make such a claim. The evidence is inadmissible. (b) A witness is asked whether he was not dismissed from a situation for dishonesty. He denies it. Evidence is offered to show that he was dismissed for dishonesty. The evidence is not admissible. (c) A affirms that on a certain day he saw B at Lahore. A is asked whether he himself was not on that day at Calcutta. He denies it. Evidence is offered to show that A was on that day at Calcutta. The evidence is admissible, not as contradicting A on a fact which affects his credit, but as contradicting the alleged fact that B was seen on the day in question in Lahore. In each of these cases the witness might, if his denial was false, be charged with giving false evidence. (d) A is asked whether his family has not had a bloodfeud with the family of B against whom he gives evidence. He denies it. He may be contradicted on the ground that the question tends to impeach his impartiality.
BSA 2023 (in force)

Section 156, BSA 2023

156. Exclusion of evidence to contradict answers to questions testing veracity.—When a witness has been asked and has answered any question which is relevant to the inquiry only in so far as it tends to shake his credit by injuring his character, no evidence shall be given to contradict him; but, if he answers falsely, he may afterwards be charged with giving false evidence. Exception 1.—If a witness is asked whether he has been previously convicted of any crime and denies it, evidence may be given of his previous conviction. Exception 2.—If a witness is asked any question tending to impeach his impartiality, and answers it by denying the facts suggested, he may be contradicted. Illustrations. (a) A claim against an underwriter is resisted on the ground of fraud. The claimant is asked whether, in a former transaction, he had not made a fraudulent claim. He denies it. Evidence is offered to show that he did make such a claim. The evidence is inadmissible. (b) A witness is asked whether he was not dismissed from a situation for dishonesty. He denies it. Evidence is offered to show that he was dismissed for dishonesty. The evidence is not admissible. (c) A affirms that on a certain day he saw B at Goa. A is asked whether he himself was not on that day at Varanasi. He denies it. Evidence is offered to show that A was on that day at Varanasi. The evidence is admissible, not as contradicting A on a fact which affects his credit, but as contradicting the alleged fact that B was seen on the day in question in Goa. In each of these cases, the witness might, if his denial was false, be charged with giving false evidence. (d) A is asked whether his family has not had a blood feud with the family of B against whom he gives evidence. He denies it. He may be contradicted on the ground that the question tends to impeach his impartiality.

When It Applies: IEA 153 vs BSA 156

Under IEA 153
  1. A witness was asked and answered a question during an inquiry.
  2. The question mattered to the inquiry only because it tended to shake the credit of the witness by injuring character.
  3. No evidence could be given to contradict the witness on that answer.
  4. If the witness gave a false answer, the witness could afterwards face a charge of giving false evidence.
Under BSA 156
  1. A witness is asked and answers a question during an inquiry.
  2. The question matters to the inquiry only because it tends to shake the credit of the witness by injuring character.
  3. No evidence can be given to contradict the witness on that answer.
  4. If the witness gives a false answer, the witness can afterwards face a charge of giving false evidence.

What IEA 153 to BSA 156 Means in Practice

The same rule and both exceptions apply without any substantive change. Illustration (c) replaces Lahore and Calcutta with Goa and Varanasi, and minor spelling edits join after wards into afterwards and split bloodfeud into blood feud. For matters governed by the BSA, cite Section 156 BSA instead of Section 153 IEA.

Disclaimer: This comparison is for informational purposes only. The new criminal laws came into effect on 1 July 2024. Consult a qualified advocate for legal advice.

Sources: Indian Evidence Act, 1872 · Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 ·