Q.

1 EVIDENCE AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH SUBSTANTIVE AND

PROCEDURAL LAWS
Additional legal distinctions can be made between the two basic categories of
substantive laws and procedural laws. They comprise the two main categories of
law:

Legislative bodies pass statutory laws, which are known as substantive laws.

Contrarily, procedural laws are the procedures and norms that every court must
follow in order to hear and decide cases.

‘Adjective laws’ is another name for procedural laws. It is impossible to draft

procedural legislation without first passing substantive laws. Similar to how
procedural rules are necessary for fair and correct application of substantive laws.
Both rules are equally crucial, and one cannot be used successfully without the
other.

WHAT IS EVIDENCE?
In a court of law, evidence is crucial to prove a claimed fact. However, not all
asserted facts that are regarded as evidence by the parties are necessarily
admissible in court. Evidence is something that is used to support or refute an
argument. Evidence is defined as “information used in court to prove something,”
according to Oxford Learner’s Dictionary. Thus, the proof must be unambiguous.

The Indian Evidence Act of 1872 states that “Evidence” refers to all declarations
made in court by witnesses regarding the facts being investigated. Documentary
evidence includes both spoken comments like these and any documents made
for the court’s consideration, including electronic recordings. However, it is
important to distinguish between the ideas of evidence and the law of
evidence.[1]

According to Stephen’s definition in the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy,

“Evidence” is defined as any remarks that witnesses are allowed or required to

make in front of the court; these utterances are referred to as oral evidence.
All papers supplied for the Court’s review; these materials together are referred
to as documentary evidence

The purpose of the legal system is to uphold justice by using the best evidence
available to ascertain the truth.[2]

EVIDENCE AND PROCEDURAL LAW:

The part of law that controls the litigation process is known as procedural law.

Three pillars control the criminal and civil judicial process in India:

• IPC, or the Indian Penal Code of 1960

• The 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure and the 1908 Code of Civil Procedure
• The Indian Evidence Act

The CrPC or CPC in this case is a comprehensive procedural legislation for holding
any trial in India. This procedure entails the gathering of evidence, questioning of
the accused, etc. Anything can serve as a source of evidence, from interviewing
witnesses to studying inanimate objects. Investigation falls within procedural law,
where the value of the evidence is paramount. The evidence may also be digital.
Evidence may be divided into three categories: oral, documentary, and actual.
The testimony of witnesses can be used as spoken evidence in court.
Documentary evidence includes any papers presented to a court of law for
review. The actual evidence in legal procedures is provided by the items
submitted in court.

To help the court make the best decision possible and depending on the
complexity of the case, all three pieces of evidence may be presented.
Additionally acceptable as evidence in court are emails, texts, mobile phone
recordings, etc.

Evidence is used in legal proceedings to support or refute an assertion (the

asserted fact). The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which is one of the foundational
pieces for carrying out trials, governs the creation of “evidence” in India. Section
60 of Part III[3] refers to oral evidence, whereas Section 3 of the IEA[4] refers to
documentary evidence. After the act’s revision, the electronic records are also
covered under this clause.

Although the Evidence Act specifically refers to the forms of evidence, Chapter
XXIII Part A and Part B5 of the CrPC[5] deal with the manner of recording
evidence and the Commission for the Examination of Witnesses. As part of the
production of evidence before the court of law to show or deny, the statements
made by the victim and accused throughout the hearing are of the highest
importance. The term “evidence” refers to materials pertaining to the topic of a
proceeding, including as written statements, audio/video recordings, pictures,
any sort of digital media, etc. As a result, both in court proceedings and during
trials, evidence is crucial.

EVIDENCE AND SUBSTANTIVE LAW:

Following the trial, the case’s merits are established and the dispute is resolved
using substantive law evidence. The substantive law establishes the case’s
elements, or its essence. The grand jury decides whether to dismiss the case or
bring charges after hearing the prosecution’s evidence and conducting its own
inquiry. However, a person is presumed innocent unless proven guilty. The
evidence against the suspect determines whether or not to press charges.

In the event that someone is charged with a crime, a court of law would require
substantial proof before making a ruling. And only before or during a search for
more evidence may an accused person be arrested.

Before filing charges in cases of murder, rape, etc., police consult with the Office
of Public Prosecutor (OPP), but if there is insufficient proof, an investigation may
drag on for longer. Keeping in mind the victim’s perspective, the decision to press
charges is based on information gathered during an inquiry, the general good,
and legal precepts.

The distinction between substantive and procedural rules was made explicit by
the Supreme Court of India in the case of Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Meerut
v. Sharvan Kumar Swarup and Sons (1994)[6].
According to the Court, procedural laws are those that specify how rights and
obligations are to be exercised and enforced, respectively, whereas substantive
laws fix duties and establish rights and responsibilities among and for real or
artificial people.

Legal perspectives on Substantive Laws and Procedural Laws

Many legal experts have voiced their opinions on the difference between laws.

In his book “The Works of Jeremy Bentham,[7]“ published in 1843, the English
philosopher, lawyer, and social reformer Jeremy Bentham originally used the
words “substantive laws” and “adjective laws,” which refer to procedural
regulations. However, he argued that procedural and substantive laws should
coexist in jurisprudence, as one cannot survive without the support of the other.

John Austin, on the other hand, disagreed with this difference and took a wholly
different approach to the law’s goal.

The British jurist Thomas Holland described “Substantive Law” as the laws that
outline how the laws would help to preserve rights in his work “The Elements of
Jurisprudence.” As opposed to this, procedural or adjectival laws offer means of
promoting and defending rights.

According to legal scholar Salmond, it is impossible to pinpoint the “exact nature

of distinction” of the laws. According to him, procedural laws are the laws of
“actions” and regulate the litigation process, whereas the remaining laws are
considered to be substantive law in his book “Jurisprudence.” He goes on to say
that procedural laws deal with the means and tools used to achieve these ends,
whereas substantive laws are concerned with the outcomes desired by the
administration of justice.

Another school of law maintains that there isn’t even a difference between
substantive and procedural legislation. In his book A Treatise on the Modern Law
of Evidence, Charles Frederic Chamberlayne stated that the distinction between
the rules is “artificial and illusory[8].” The disparities between the laws are
referred to as an “alleged distinction” by Professor Cook in Substance and
Procedure in the Conflict of Laws. He believed that there is a Gray region in
addition to “substance” and “procedure.”

Meaning and Characteristics of Procedural and Substantive Law

The substantive laws and the procedural laws are two interconnected and
interdependent sets of legal systems.

The fundamental laws that establish the regulations and establish the guiding
precepts in any given sector are known as substantive laws. One example of
substantive legislation in India is the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which lists many
offenses and specifies the appropriate penalties.

The collection of processes to be followed in creating, implementing, and

upholding substantive laws are known as procedural laws. The Code of Criminal
Procedure (CrPC), for instance, outlines the procedures that must be followed in
criminal cases in India.

Substantive Laws
Substantive laws specify both the offenses and punishments under criminal law
as well as the rights and responsibilities under civil law. In instance, under the
common law system, substantive laws are not codified in legislative acts but
rather are applied or amended by precedent. These laws may also be passed
through the initiative process. Substantive laws are the actual claims and
defences that should be used in every specific litigation.

Nature of Substantive Law

• Laws that determine an individual’s rights, duties, and what they may or
may not do are referred to as substantive laws.
• These statutes have the authority to determine any matter independently.
• The legal environment of every crime, including how the case will be
handled and what exact consequences will be meted out for any offense, is
determined by substantive laws.
• Substantive laws in the common law system are statutes or precedents.
 • Legal relationships between people or between an individual and the State
are the subject of substantive laws.

The Supreme Court determined that substantive laws are a collection of

regulations that “creates, defines, and regulates rights and liabilities” in the case
of Thirumalai Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India and others (2011)[9].
Alternatively, procedural laws create “a mechanism for determining those rights
and liabilities and a machinery for enforcing them”.

Legislative Sources

Typically, the Substantive Laws are drawn from:

1. The already-existing, codified concepts of common law found in statutory legislation

2.Constitution

3. Legal precedents in situations with comparable facts and circumstances.

Examples

In India, some instances and purposes of substantive civil laws include:

The Indian Contract Act, 1872, for example, stipulates the key parts and circumstances
necessary to engage into any contract. The Sales of Goods Act of 1930 for the selling of
goods and the Partnership Act of 1932 for the establishment and registration of
partnership enterprises and businesses are also included in the larger category of laws
relating to contracts.

The Indian Succession Act, 1925 is a piece of legislation that addresses the fundamental
rules of testamentary and intestate succession as they apply to Indian citizens who
practice any kind of Christianity., and others are further significant civil laws in India.

Any private wrong done to anyone or “Tort” are likewise included in substantive civil laws.
Another illustration of a substantive civil law is the Law of Torts. However, unlike its
English equivalent, Indian tort law has developed through time and is not codified.

Substantive Criminal Law

Criminal offenses and the penalties that should be given for them are covered by
substantive criminal laws.
Once a defendant breaks a criminal law, a criminal case is launched. The fundamental goal
of substantive criminal laws is to punish the guilty party, albeit depending on the
circumstances, compensation may also be given to the victim.

The court determines whether or not the accused is guilty and, if so, what should be the
consequences for the criminal offense using substantive criminal laws.

Limitations

• Sometimes, substantive legal provisions prevent people from getting justice. Justice
may be hampered by some substantive law provisions that are unfavourable to a
particular plaintiff.
• Any person’s authority and freedom can be limited and restricted by substantive
laws.
• The court is obligated to uphold the State’s unrestricted and unlimited ability to
enact laws that conform to its own desire.

For instance, in the case of Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and

another v. Union of India (2016), the Supreme Court of India invalidated the Constitution
(Ninety-Ninth Amendment) Act, 2014, which replaced the traditional collegium system of
judicial appointment with the National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC).[10]

To guarantee the most effective allocation of judicial resources, procedural laws are
created. All procedural laws are created in accordance with the legal requirements. A
court cannot impose a civil or criminal penalty on someone who hasn’t been given notice
of the case being brought against them or who hasn’t had a fair chance to defend
themselves. To ensure that every judicial action is as fair as possible, the procedural laws
must be uniform in how cases are filed, parties are notified, evidence is presented, and
the facts are established.

Nature of Procedural Laws

Procedural laws specify the means and procedures by which substantive laws may be put
into effect.

They lack the power to decide independently on any issue.

These laws are utilized in the legal system, which on occasion may be applied in situations
that are not lawful, such as the handling of any cases or the filing of any lawsuits.

Acts of Parliament or the executive branch of government are used to carry out these
laws.
Procedural laws specify methods and means for enforcing rights, as well as remedies for
their infringement and the procedures used in each lawsuit.

Always come a procedural law after a substantive legislation. Farookh Mohammed v. the
State of Madhya Pradesh (2015) was decided by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. In the
case of Gurudwara Bei Sehjal v. Nanhku and Others (2022)[11], the Himachal Pradesh
High Court decided that procedural law should not typically be regarded as “mandatory.”

Origin of Procedural Laws

Laws governing procedure are crucial to the administration of justice. They serve as the
method through which substantive laws ought to be put into practice.

The Constitution is the main source for procedural legislation. A few further sources for
procedural legislation are:

Legislatively passed statutes; written policies for officers of various law enforcement
agencies. Although these rules are not laws, breaking them results in internal
consequences.

The Supreme Court has established several principles for legal procedure, norms, and case
judgements.

Types of Procedural Laws

The procedural laws vary amongst legal systems.

Some procedural laws could focus on finding the truth or fairness between the parties,
while others may aim for a prompt resolution of disputes. The correct and complete
application of legal concepts may also be a component of other procedural legislation.
The tools of enforcing procedural laws are substantive laws. As a result, there are several
categories of procedural laws based on the traits of substantive laws.

Based on them, there are mainly two categories of procedural laws:

• Laws of civil procedure or laws governing civil procedure, and

• laws of criminal procedure or laws governing criminal procedure.

According to Section 3 of the Evidence Act of 1872, “evidence” includes the following: a)
All statements made in court by witnesses regarding the facts being investigated are
referred to as oral evidence;
b) all papers [including electronic records] submitted for the court’s review are referred
to as documentary evidence.

Laws of Criminal Process or Criminal Procedure Laws

All three forms of evidence may be offered in court, depending on the nature of the case
and the need to get the proper verdict. Among other things, evidence from emails, texts,
and mobile phone recordings are admissible in court. The use of evidence in court to prove
or refute a fact (the contested fact) is governed by the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.Although
the Evidence Act deals directly with the types of evidence, the CrPC also discusses the way
in which evidence is recorded and the Commission responsible for witness examination.
The victim’s and accused’s statements are crucial in the production of evidence in front
of the court of law to prove or refute during the procedures.

Due to the fact that it establishes the guidelines for the admission, applicability, and
sufficiency of evidence in court proceedings, the law of evidence is directly tied to
substantive laws. In other words, the law of evidence establishes what kinds of evidence
are acceptable in a court of law for use in proving or refuting legal claims.

Contrarily, substantive laws are the legal guidelines that specify and govern the privileges
and immunities of people and institutions within a society. Wide-ranging legal topics
including contract law, property law, criminal law, and torts are all covered by substantive
laws.[12]

CONCLUSION

It is challenging to hold a trial and make a decision without proof. It is difficult to establish
the veracity of the disputed claim or problem or to establish the guilt or innocence of the
accused. Therefore, evidence is crucial to every phase of a trial, including, let’s say, the
decision of the case. In procedural law, the evidence is utilized for things like document
inspection, electronic evidence preservation, etc. In substantive law, the accusations
against the suspect are made using the evidence. While a trial is taking place in court,
evidence can potentially be altered. In order to do that, the prosecution must explain it
to the court, and occasionally, such evidence may also be disregarded.

Laws that are both substantive and procedural are crucial to the administration of justice.
The rights and duties of an individual toward others and the state are covered by
substantive laws. The goals and subjects of legal disputes are likewise covered by these
statutes. On the other hand, procedural laws regulate and control the course of every
individual case’s litigation. The substantive and procedural laws work best when
combined. Procedural law outlines how laws should be applied, whereas substantive law
explains the fundamental principles and guidelines governing the application of the law.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court correctly said that “a procedural legislation is always
subordinate to the substantive law, and this has been established in several decisions.
 RELEVANCY AND ADMISSIBILITY
PLEA OF ALIBI
Q.2 WHAT IS BASIC CONCEPT OF PLEA OF ALIBI? EXPLAIN THIS
CONCEPT WITH EXAMPLES
The concept of the plea of alibi is an important defense mechanism in criminal
law, and it is articulated in the S 9 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam or S 11 of
Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Here’s a detailed explanation along with examples:

DEFINITION AND LEGAL BASIS

Alibi: The term "alibi" is derived from Latin, meaning "elsewhere." A plea of alibi
is a defense used by an accused person claiming that they were at a different
location at the time the alleged offense was committed, making it impossible
for them to be the perpetrator.

Indian Evidence Act, 1872:

The plea of alibi is governed by S 9 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam of Section

11 of the Indian Evidence Act, which states:
o "Facts not otherwise relevant are relevant if they are inconsistent with any
fact in issue or relevant fact."
o "Facts not otherwise relevant are relevant if by themselves or in connection
with other facts they make the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue
or relevant fact highly probable or improbable."

APPLICATION OF THE PLEA OF ALIBI

1. Burden of Proof:
o The burden of proving the plea of alibi lies on the accused. This
is because it is a special defense, and the accused must establish it
by producing convincing evidence.
o However, the standard of proof required for an alibi is not
beyond a reasonable doubt but should be strong enough to create
 reasonable doubt about the presence of the accused at the crime
scene.
2. Evidence Required:
o The accused needs to present credible and reliable evidence to
support the alibi, such as witness testimonies, documents, or other
forms of proof that confirm their presence at a different location
during the time of the crime.

Example 1:

• Scenario: An individual is accused of committing a robbery in Mumbai

on 15th June at 8 PM.
• Plea of Alibi: The accused claims they were attending a wedding in
Delhi on the same date and time.
• Evidence: The accused presents wedding invitations, travel tickets,
hotel bills, and testimonies from guests at the wedding to support the alibi.

Example 2:

• Scenario: A person is charged with a murder that took place on 10th

August at 6 PM in Chennai.
• Plea of Alibi: The accused asserts that they were in a hospital in
Bangalore attending to a medical emergency during the time of the murder.

Evidence: The accused provides medical records, CCTV footage from the hospital,
and statements from hospital staff to substantiate the alibi.

.CASE LAWS ON PLEA OF ALIBI

MUNSHI PRASAD V STATE OF BIHAR 2001 (SC)

The Supreme Court held in this case that the accused’s presence at a reasonable
distance from the place of occurrence is necessary to prove a defence of plea of
alibi, and the distance should be at least 500 meters.
MUKESH V. STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI, AIR 2017 SC 2161
In this case, the accused claimed that he was attending a musical program with
his family at a park at the time of the incident. However, the court rejected the
plea of alibi, considering the contradictory evidence, such as the dying
declaration of the victim, DNA analysis, and fingerprint analysis. The evidence
from the authorities of the park also revealed that no permission was granted for
any musical program on the date of the incident.

LAKHAN SINGH @ PAPPU V. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

In this case, the court emphasized that a defence of plea of alibi should be raised
at the earliest opportunity and not belatedly at the stage of defence evidence.
The accused failed to provide any reason or explanation for not raising the
defence earlier.

ESSENTIALS OF THE ALIBI IN EVIDENCE ACT:

1. Commission of Crime and Charges:

A crime must have been committed that is punishable by law.

The accused must be officially charged with committing the crime.

2. Absence from Crime Scene:

- The accused must prove that they were not present at the crime scene when
the offense occurred.
- It is essential to demonstrate that the accused was at a different location,
making it impossible for them to be present at the scene of the crime.

3. Timely Assertion of Defense:

- The defense of the plea of alibi must be raised as early as possible in the legal
proceedings, it should ordinarily be raised in the initial stage of defence
proceedings.
WHO CAN USE THE PLEA OF ALIBI?
The plea of alibi is typically employed by the accused in a criminal case. The
accused asserts that they were physically present at a different location at the
time of the alleged offense, challenging the prosecution's claim regarding their
involvement.

WHEN TO RAISE THE PLEA OF ALIBI IN BSA?

For the plea of alibi to be effective, it should be raised as early as possible in legal
proceedings. This often occurs during critical stages such as the framing of
charges or the preliminary hearing. Timely assertion allows for a comprehensive
examination of the defense and its supporting evidence.

FAILURE TO ESTABLISH THE PLEA OF ALIBI:

If the accused fails to establish the plea of alibi, it does not automatically imply
their presence at the crime scene. The burden remains on the prosecution to
provide positive evidence proving the accused's presence at the scene of the
crime. Failure to establish the alibi, therefore, should not be considered evidence
of guilt.

SECTIONS OF BHARATIYA SAKSHYA ADHINIYAM (BSA) RELEVANT TO

PLEA OF ALIBI:

The plea of alibi finds recognition under Section 9 and Section 106 of the
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA).

- Section 9 BSA: When Facts Not Otherwise Relevant Become Relevant:

It outlines the relevance of facts that may not otherwise be relevant to the case
but become relevant if inconsistent with any fact or relevant fact.

For example, if the accused claims to be in a different city during the alleged
crime, this fact becomes relevant as it makes the claims of prosecukon
inconsistent
.SECTION 9 BSA: WHEN FACTS NOT OTHERWISE RELEVANT BECOME RELEVANT:

It outlines the relevance of facts that may not otherwise be relevant to the case
but become relevant if inconsistent with any fact or relevant fact.

For example, if the accused claims to be in a different city during the alleged
crime, this fact becomes relevant as it makes the claims of prosecution
inconsistent.

- SECTION 106 OF BSA: BURDEN OF PROOF AS TO PARTICULAR FACT:

- It addresses the burden of proof concerning specific facts. If the accused asserts
they were in a different location, the burden of proving this fact lies with the
person making the claim.
Conspiracy section- 8
Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have
conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said,
done or written by any one of such persons in reference to their common
intention, after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of
them, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to be so
conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as
for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it.

Illustration.

Reasonable ground exists for believing that A has joined in a conspiracy to wage
war against the State.

The facts that B procured arms in Europe for the purpose of the conspiracy, C
collected money in Kolkata for a like object, D persuaded persons to join the
conspiracy in Mumbai, E published writings advocating the object in view at Agra,
and F transmitted from Delhi to G at Singapore the money which C had collected
at Kolkata, and the contents of a letter written by H giving an account of the
conspiracy, are each relevant, both to prove the existence of the conspiracy, and
to prove A's complicity in it, although he may have been ignorant of all of them,
and although the persons by whom they were done were strangers to him, and
although they may have taken place before he joined the conspiracy or after he
left it.

[12:58 am, 5/1/2025] Co Convener : IEA SECTION 10/ BSA Section 8 - Things said
or done by conspirator in reference to common design

Scope. - The words 'common intention' signify a common thread existing at the
time when the thing was said, done or written by one of them while the
conspiracy was on foot are relevant as evidence of the common intention, once
reasonable ground has been shown to believe in its existence. - Mirza Akbar v

King AIR 1940 PC 176.

* Conspiracy: Meaning. - A conspiracy consists not merely in the intention of two
or more, but in the agreement of two or more to do an unlawful act by unlawful
means. So long as such a design rests in intention only, it is not indictable. When
two agree to carry it into effect, the very plot is an act itself and the act of each
of the parties, promise against promise, actus contra actum, capable of being
enforced, is punishable if for a criminal object or for the use of criminal means -
R v Leathem 1901 AC 405.

* Conspiracy: What is and how made. -Section 10 is an exception to the rule that
an act or action of an accused cannot be used as evidence against another. An act
or action of an accused can be used against another if the court finds that two or
more persons had conspired together for committing an

offence = Saju v State noT SCC 378.

Existence of "reasonable ground to believe" that the conspirators have

conspired together is necessary. Some prima facie evidence to show that there
was such conspiracy is sufficient. If the condition is satisfied then anything said
by one of the conspirators becomes substantive evidence against the other,
provided that should have been a statement "in reference to their common
intention". The principle works on the theory of agency. Every conspirator is an
agent of his associate in carrying out the object of conspiracy.

Broad principles governing the law of conspiracy.-

Wadhawa J. has summarised some of the broad principles governing the law of
conspiracy in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. Those are:

(1) Under sec. 120A, offence of criminal conspiracy is committed when two or
more persons agree to do or cause to be done an illegal act or legal act by illegal
means. Not only the intention but there has to be an agreement to carry out the
object of the intention, which is an offence.

(2) Conspiracy is inherently hatched in private or in secrecy. It is rarely possible

to establish a conspiracy by direct evidence. Usually, both the existence of the
conspiracy and its objects must be inferred from the circumstances and the
conduct of the accused.
 : Conspirators may for example, be enrolled in a singular chain. Persons may be
members of single conspiracy even though each is ignorant of the identity of
many others who may have diverse roles to play. It is not a part of the crime of
conspiracy that all the conspirators need not agree to play the same or an active
role.

(4) When two or more persons agree to commit a crime of conspiracy, then
regardless of making or considering any plans for its commission, and even
though no step is taken by any such person to

carry out their common purpose, a crime is committed by each and every one
who joins in the agreement.

(5) It is not necessary that all conspirators should agree to the common purpose
at the same time. They may join with other conspirators at any time before the
commission of the intended objective and all are equally responsible.

(6) A charge of conspiracy may prejudice the accused because it forces them into
joint trial.

Introduction of evide Screenshot some may result in the conviction of all, which
is to be avoided.

(6) A charge of conspiracy may prejudice the accused because it forces them into
joint trial.

Introduction of evidence against some may result in the conviction of all, which
is to be avoided.

(7) It is the unlawful agreement which is the gravamen of the crime of conspiracy
and the offence is complete even though there is no agreement as to the means
by which the purpose is to be accomplished. The unlawful agreement which
amounts to a conspiracy need be formal or express but may be inherent in and
inferred from the circumstances, especially declarations, acts and conduct of the
conspirators. The agreement need not be entered into by all the parties to it at
the same time but may be reached by successive actions evidencing their joining
of the conspiracy.
(8)…

conspiracy into effect, is guilty though he intends to take no effective part in the
crime - State v Nalini (1999)5 SCC 253 at pp. 515-518.

A statement by a conspirator before commencement of conspiracy or after its

termination is inadmissible against co-conspirator; to apply section 10 it must be
shown that:

(1) there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have
conspired together.

(2) the conspiracy is to commit an offence or an actionable wrong - State v Nalini

(1999)5 SCC 253

Every conspirator is an agent of his associate in carrying out the object of

conspiracy. The statement is admissible if made during the period when the
agency subsisted. Once it is shown that a person became snapped out of the
conspiracy, any statement made subsequent thereto cannot be used against
other conspirator. A post-arrest statement made to a police officer shall not
attract sec. 10.

Even if the object of conspiracy has not been achieved and there is still agreement
to do the illegal act the offence of criminal conspiracy continues - Md. Khalid v
State (2002) 7 SCC 334

* Condition for applicability of section 10.-In order to apply sec. 10, there should
first be a prima facie evidence that the person was a party to the conspiracy
before his acts or statements can be used against the co-conspirators. In this case
there is no such prima facie evidence. There is only a confession of an accused
that he along with other co-accused was a party to a conspiracy. Such

confession was recorded long after the murder when the conspiracy had
culminated. Section 10 cannot be pressed into service - Jayendra Saraswathi v
State AIR 2005 SC 716.
* The statements made by the conspirators after they are arrested cannot be
brought within the ambit of sec. 10, by that time conspiracy would have ended -
State v Navjot Sandhu (2005) I SCC 600

* Admissibility of evidence in conspiracy. —Section 10 of the Evidence Act

begins with the phrase

"where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have
conspired together to commit an offence" which implies that if prima facie
evidence of the existence of a conspiracy is given and accepted, the evidence of
acts and statements made by any one of the conspirators in furtherance of the
common intention is admissible against all. In the facts of the present case, the
prima facie evidence of the existence of conspiracy is well-established - Mukesh
v State of NCT

(2017)2 SCC (Cri) 673 (3-Judge Bench) para 306.

* Since a conspiracy must be conceived and hatched in complete secrecy, in very

rare cases one may come across direct evidence in this regard. In most of the
cases it is only the circumstantial evidence which is available. Where the
conspiracy alleged is regarding commission of a serious crime, then in that event
mere proof of an agreement between the accused for commission of such a crime
alone is enough to bring about a conviction under sec. 120B and the proof of any
overt act by the accused or by any one of them would not be necessary. The law
in such a situation does not require that each and every person, who is a party to
the conspiracy, must do some overt act towards the fulfilment of the object of
conspiracy, the essential ingredient being an agreement between the
conspirators to commit the crime an *:4.---quirements and ingredients are
established, the act would fall

SECTION 14 BSA

Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 - Section 14: Existence of course of

business when relevant
When there is a question whether a particular act was done, the existence of any
course of business, according to which it naturally would have been done, is a relevant
fact.

Illustrations:
(a) The question is, whether a particular letter was dispatched. The facts that it was the
ordinary course of business for all letters put in a certain place to be carried to the post,
and that particular letter was put in that place are relevant.

(b) The question is, whether a particular letter reached A. The facts that it was posted
in due course, and was not returned through the Return Letter Office, are relevant.

Brefe Detail

Section 14 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, addresses the relevance of a

course of business in determining whether a particular act, such as the dispatch or
receipt of a letter, occurred. It establishes that if an act aligns with an established

1. Example 1: If a letter was found in a designated outgoing mail slot in an office, this
supports the argument that the letter was dispatched according to the regular business
practice.

2. Example 2: If a letter is tracked and shows no return to sender and was sent through
the normal postal process, this indicates it likely reached the intended recipient.

Summary
Section 14 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam highlights the importance of established
business practices in assessing whether specific acts were performed, such as the
dispatch and receipt of letters. It clarifies that evidence of such practices is relevant in
legal determinations.
 UNIT 4

Great! Here's a detailed summary of Sections 124 to 139 of the Bharatiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023:

Section 124: Who May Testify

• This section outlines the general competency of witnesses, including

exceptions for individuals who, due to extreme youth, old age, disease, or
mental condition, are unable to understand questions or provide rational
answers.

Section 125: Competency of Witnesses Unable to Communicate Verbally

• Details the provisions for examining witnesses who are unable to speak,
including the use of written or sign language.

Section 126: Husband or Wife of a Party as Witness

• Discusses the conditions under which a spouse is considered a competent

witness against their partner, particularly in cases involving injury or
violence by one spouse against the other.

Section 127: Judges and Magistrates as Witnesses

• Specifies that judges and magistrates are competent to testify, though it

outlines certain limitations regarding matters they adjudicated over.

Section 128: Communications during Marriage

• Establishes the privilege of confidential communications between spouses,

preventing one spouse from disclosing these communications without the
consent of the other.

Section 129: Affairs of State

• Protects information related to state affairs from being disclosed in court if

it is detrimental to public interest.
Section 130: Official Communications

• Similar to Section 129, but focusing on the protection of official

communications from being disclosed in court.

Section 131: Information as to Commission of Offences

• Discusses how certain communications, particularly those made to legal

advisors in relation to the commission of an offence, are protected from
disclosure.

Section 132: Professional Communications

• Establishes the privilege for professional communications between clients

and their legal advisors, making such communications inadmissible without
the client's consent.

Section 133: Privilege Not Waived by Volunteering Evidence

• States that privilege is not waived even if the evidence is voluntarily

disclosed in court.

Section 134: Confidential Communications with Legal Advisers

• Extends the protection of confidential communications to communications

with legal advisors, emphasizing that such communications remain
protected.

Section 135: Production of Title-Deeds of Witness Not a Party

• Covers the conditions under which title deeds in the possession of a witness,
who is not a party to the case, must be produced.

Section 136: Production of Documents or Electronic Records

• Details the procedures for the production of documents or electronic

records that are in the possession of a third party who may have grounds to
refuse production.
Section 137: Witness Not Excused from Answering

• Indicates that a witness is not excused from answering questions on the

grounds that the answer may incriminate them, except in specific situations
protected by law.

Section 138: Accomplice

• States that the testimony of an accomplice is admissible, though it should

be treated with caution and requires corroboration.

Section 139: Number of Witnesses

• Clarifies that the law does not prescribe a minimum number of witnesses
necessary for the proof of any fact.
Examination of witness ( sec 140-168)

Witness is one who sees, knows or vouches for something or one who gives
teskmony, under oath or affirmako in person or by oral or wrisen deposikon, or
by affidavit. The queskoning of a witness plays a vital role in the presentakon of
evidence to a court of law, irrespeckve of the essence of the case, i.e., whether it
is civil or criminal. The admissibility of facts is also a crikcal topic determined only
by the judicial officers. The teskmony of the witness shall be reported in the form
of a queskon and answer. Witness is not required to make a speech to the court,
but is only intended to address the issue. The teskmony of the witness is limited
to the actual facts of the case. Such a method of recording evidence shall be
referred to as the examinakon of a witness.

Examination of witnesses (Section 136-140, 143-153 and 155)

Section 136 of Evidence Act “Judge to decide as to admissibility of

evidence”

If any party proposes to offer evidence of some fact, the judge may ask the party
proposing to give the evidence in what way the alleged fact would have been
significant if it had been proven; and the judge shall accept the evidence if he
finds that it would have been relevant if it had been proved, and not otherwise.
If the truth proposed to be proven is one of which evidence is admissible only on
the basis of proof of some other fact, the latter must be identified before the first
evidence is presented, unless the party undertakes to provide proof of that fact
and the Court is pleased with that undertaking.
If the relevance of one of the alleged facts depends on whether another of the
alleged facts is first proven, the Judge may, in his discretion, either allow proof of
the first facts to be presented before the second facts are established, or order
evidence of the second facts before the first facts are established.[1]
Section 137 of Evidence Act “Examination in chief”

The questioning of a witness by the party calling him shall be referred to his in-
chief examination.
Cross-examination-The cross-examination of the witness by the opposing party
shall be called cross-examination.
Re-examination—The examination of a witness shall be called a re-examination
of the witness following cross-examination by the party who called him.

Section 138 of Evidence Act “Order of examinations”

Witnesses shall be questioned-in-chief, then (if the opposing party so wishes)

cross-examination, then (if the party calling it so wishes) re-examination.
Examination and cross-examination must refer to the relevant evidence, but
cross-examination must not be limited to the facts testified by the witness at the
time of the examination-in-Chief.[2]

Direction of re-examination-The re-examination shall be directed to the

clarification of the matters referred to in the cross-examination; and, if a new
matter is brought before the Court by permission, the adverse party can cross-
examination the matter further.

Section 139 of Evidence Act “Cross-examination of person called to

produce a document”
A individual summoned to produce a document does not become a witness by
the simple fact that he produces it and cannot be cross-examined unless and until
he is called as a witness.

Section 140 of the Evidence Act “Witnesses to character”

Witnesses to characters can be cross-examined and re-examined.
Holt C.J. claimed in Haagen Swendress that a man is not born a jack, that there
must be time to make him so, or that he will be discovered shortly after he
becomes one. A man will be considered a competent man this year, and then be
a beggar the next, it is tragic that a lot of men are going to happen, and this former
reputation would mean little to him in this case.[3]

Section 143 of Evidence Act “When they may be asked.” –

Leading questions may be asked in cross-examination.

Section 144 of Evidence Act “Evidence as to matters in writing.”

Any witness may be asked whether any contract, grant or other disposition of
property, as evidenced by him or her, has not been found in a document, and if
he or she says it has been, or if he or she is about to make any argument as to the
content of any document which, in the opinion of the Court, should be made, the
adverse party may object to such evidence being given.

EXPLANATION-The witness can provide oral evidence of the statements made by

other persons concerning the substance of the records, given that such
statements are, in themselves, relevant facts.

Illustration

The question is whether A has attacked B.

C deposes that he heard A say to D—”B wrote a letter accusing me of theft, and I
will be revenged on him”. This statement is relevant, as showing A’s motive for
the assault, and evidence may be given of it, though no other evidence is given
about the letter.

Section 145 of Evidence Act “Cross-examination as to previous

statements in writing.” –
A witness can be cross-examined as to previous statements made by him in
writing or reduced to writing, and related to the matters in question, without
having been shown or proven to have been made; however, if it is intended to
refute him in writing, his attention must be drawn to certain parts of it which are
to be used for the purpose of contradicting him before the writing can be proved.
Section 146 of Evidence Act “Questions lawful in cross-examination.”

When a witness is cross-examination, he can, in addition to the questions alluded

to above, pose any question that appears to occur.
(1) to the detriment of his veracity.
(2) to find out who he is, and what his place in life is, or
(3) to shake his credit by damaging his integrity, even if the answer to such
questions can appear, directly or indirectly, to criminalise him or may directly or
indirectly expose him or her to a penalty or forfeiture.

Section 147 of Evidence Act “When witness to be compelled to

answer.” –

If any such question relates to a matter relevant to the suit or proceeding, the
provisions of section 132 shall apply thereto.

Section 148 of Evidence Act “Court to decide when question shall be

asked and when witness compelled to answer.” –

If any such question concerns an issue which is not relevant to the suit or
proceedings, except in so far as it affects the credit of the witness by harming his
character, the Court shall determine whether or not the witness is obliged to
answer it and can, if it finds it necessary, notify the witness that he is not obliged
to answer it. In the exercise of its discretion, the Court of Justice shall take
account of the following considerations:

(1) Such questions are right in that they are of such a nature that the validity of
the imputation they have provided will have a significant effect on the judgement
of the Courts as to the integrity of the witness in the matter testified to;

(2) Such questions are inappropriate if the imputation they render relates to
matters so distant in time, or of such character, that the truth of the imputation
would not have an impact, or would have a slight effect, on the judgement of the
Court as to the integrity of the witness in the matter testifying to it;

(3) Such questions are unacceptable if there is a significant difference between

the importance of the imputation made against the character of the witness and
the importance of the evidence;

(4) The Court may, if it deems it necessary, draw from the reluctance of the
witness to respond an inference that the response, if given, would be
unfavourable.

Section 149 of Evidence Act “Question not to be asked without

reasonable grounds.” –

No question, as alluded to in section 148, should be asked unless the person

asking the question has fair grounds to believe that the imputation it provides is
well-founded.

Illustrations:

(a) A lawyer shall be told by a lawyer or vakil that an important witness is a dakait.
This is a fair basis for questioning the witness if he is a dakait.

(b) The pleader shall be told by the person before the court that an important
witness is a dakait. The informant, upon being questioned by the pleader,
gives satisfactory reasons for the allegation. This is a fair basis for questioning
the witness if he is a dakait.

(c) A witness, of whom nothing is known, is randomly asked if he is a dakait. There

are no fair grounds for the issue.
(d) A witness, about whom nothing is known, being asked as to his way of life and
means of living, gives unsatisfactory answers. This could be a fair ground to
ask him if he is a dakait.

Section 150 of Evidence Act “Procedure of Court in case of question

being asked without reasonable grounds.” –

If the Court is of the opinion that any such question has been raised without fair
grounds, it may, if it has been asked by a lawyer, a pleader, a vakil or a lawyer,
refer the circumstances of the case to the High Court or to any other authority to
which that lawyer, pleader, vakil or lawyer is the subject in the exercise of his
profession.

Section 151 of Evidence Act “Indecent and scandalous questions”-

The Court may prohibit any questions or investigations which it finds to be

indecent or scandalous, even if such questions or investigations may have any
effect on the questions before the Court, unless they relate to the facts at issue
or to matters which need to be known in order to decide whether or not the facts
at interest existed.

Section 152 of Evidence Act “Questions intended to insult or annoy.” –

The Court shall forbid any question which appears to it to be intended to be

disrespectful or irritating, or which, in itself, appears to the Court to be needlessly
offensive in form.

Section 153 of Evidence Act “Exclusion of evidence to contradict

answers to questions testing veracity.” –
If a witness has been asked and answered any question that is important to the
investigation only in so far as it appears to shake his credit by damaging his
integrity, no proof shall be given to refute him; but if he responds falsely, he may
be subsequently charged with giving false evidence.
Exception 1.-If a witness is asked if he has previously been convicted of any crime
and denies it, proof of his previous conviction can be presented.

Exception 2.-If a witness is asked some question that appears to challenge his
impartiality and addresses it by denying the evidence implied, he can be
contradicted.

LEADING QUESTIONS (SECTION 141,142)

Section 141 of Evidence Act “Leading questions.”–

Any question suggesting the answer which the person pulling it wishes or expects
to receive, is called a leading question.

Section 142 of Evidence Act “When they must not be asked.”-

Leading questions cannot even with the approval of the Court be referred to the
adverse party in an examination-in-chief or in a re-examination.
The Court shall allow questions to be posed in respect of matters which are
introductory or undisputed or which, in its opinion, have already been sufficiently
identified.

HOSTILE WITNESS (SECTION 155)

Section 155 of Evidence Act “Impeaching credit of witness.” –

The credit of the witness can be charged in the following manner by the adverse
party or, with the permission of the Court, by the party who so requests

(1) By the testimony of individuals who testify that they conclude, from their
experience of the witness, that he is unworthy of credit;

(2) By proof that the witness has been bribed, or has accepted an offer of bribery,
or has obtained some other unethical evidence to prove it;

(3) By proof of an earlier assertion which is inconsistent with some part of its facts
which may be contradicted;
(4) Omitted Indian Evidence Amendment Act, 2002

Explanation – A witness who has found another witness to be unworthy of credit

does not give reasons for his belief at the time of his test, but his reasons may be
questioned in cross-examination, and the responses he gives cannot be
contradicted, even if they are incorrect, he may subsequently be charged with
giving false proof.

Illustrations

(a) A sue B for the price of the products sold and sent to B.
C states he shipped the goods to B.
Evidence is provided to prove that, on a previous occasion, he had said that he
had not supplied goods to B.

The proof is admissible.

(b) A is charged with the murder of B.
C says that B, when he died, declared that A had given B the wound from which
he died.

Evidence is provided to prove that, on a previous occasion, C said that the wound
was not given by or in the presence of A.
The proof is admissible.

REFRESHING MEMORY (SECTION 159)

Section 159 of Evidence Act “Refreshing memory.” –

A witness may, while under questioning, refresh his memory by referring to any
writing made by himself at the time of the transaction in respect of which he is
questioned, or so soon thereafter that the Court finds it probable that the
transaction was fresh in his memory at that time.
The witness can also refer to any other writing made by any other person and
read by the witness at the time referred to above, if he has known that it is
accurate when he reads it.
Where a witness may use a copy of the document to refresh his or her memory.
– When a witness may refresh his or her memory by reference to any document,
the witness may, with the permission of the Court, refer to a copy of the
document as follows:

Provided that the Court is satisfied that there is a sufficient explanation for the
failure to produce the original. An expert can refresh his memory by referring to
professional treaties.

In the case of Jivan Lal Dage v. Nitmani, the plaintiff’s brothers were not
produced in due time. The Court refused to allow the plaintiff to produce his
books of accounts, but allowed him to check his memory by looking at their
entries. The private council held that the proof was appropriate under Section
159. A document not included in the list of documents as required by Order VII,
Rule 13 of the CPC may be used for the analysis of the memory. Papers filed late
can be used to recover the memory.
 Section- 158
Section 158 Impeaching the Credit of a Witness Under Bharatiya
Sakshya Adhiniyam
In any legal proceeding, the credibility of a witness can significantly impact the
outcome. The testimony of a reliable witness may sway the court’s decision, while
a questionable witness can cast doubts on the evidence presented. Section 158
of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) focuses on concept of “Impeaching
the Credit of a Witness .” This legal provision empowers parties to challenge the
credibility of witnesses through clearly defined methods,

What does it mean by Impeaching the Credit of a Witness ?

Impeaching the credit of a witness means challenging or questioning the

reliability and honesty of a witness’s testimony during a trial. Under Section 158
of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), the opposing party (or, with the
court’s permission, the party who called the witness) can challenge a witness’s
credibility in specific ways. Let’s break it down in simple terms:

Section 158 Impeaching the Credit of a Witness .

The credit of a witness may be impeached in the following ways by the adverse
party, or, with the consent of the Court, by the party who calls him—

(a) by the evidence of persons who testify that they, from their knowledge of the
witness, believe him to be unworthy of credit;

(b) by proof that the witness has been bribed, or has accepted the offer of a bribe,
or has received any other corrupt inducement to give his evidence;

(c) by proof of former statements inconsistent with any part of his evidence which
is liable to be contradicted.
How to Impeach a Witness’s Credit ? under Section 158 BSA

1. By Testimony of Others About the Witness’s Character (Section

158(a))

• People who personally know the witness can be called to testify that they
believe the witness is not trustworthy. This can challenge the overall
reliability of the witness’s evidence.
• Example: Suppose in a theft case, a witness says they saw the accused
stealing. The opposing party can call someone who knows the witness to
testify that the witness has a history of lying or dishonesty, suggesting that
their testimony might not be credible.
2. By Proving Bribery or Corruption (Section 158(b))

• If it can be shown that the witness has been bribed or received any kind of
corrupt incentive to testify in a particular way, their credibility can be
questioned.
• Example : In a property dispute, if a witness testifies in favor of one party,
and the opposing party shows proof that the witness accepted money from
that party to give false testimony, the witness’s evidence loses credibility.
3. By Showing Inconsistent Statements (Section 158(c))

• If the witness previously made statements that contradict what they are
saying in court now, those earlier statements can be used to challenge their
current testimony.
• Example : If a witness in a car accident case states in court that the accident
happened at night, but earlier told the police it happened in the morning,
this inconsistency can be highlighted to show that the witness might be
unreliable.
Explanation.— A witness declaring another witness to be unworthy of credit may
not, upon his examination-in-chief, give reasons for his belief, but he may be asked
his reasons in cross-examination, and the answers which he gives cannot be
contradicted, though, if they are false, he may afterwards be charged with giving
false evidence.

Understand the Explanation :

When someone testifies that another witness is unreliable, they cannot provide
reasons for this belief during the main examination (examination-in-chief).
However, during cross-examination, they can be asked why they think so. The
answers given during cross-examination cannot be disputed or challenged, but if
those answers are false, the witness could face charges for providing false
evidence.

Illustrations:

(a) A sues B for the price of goods sold and delivered to B. C says that he delivered
the goods to B. Evidence is offered to show that, on a previous occasion, he said
that he had not delivered goods to B. The evidence is admissible.

(b) A is accused of the murder of B. C says that B, when dying, declared that A had
given B the wound of which he died. Evidence is offered to show that, on a
previous occasion, C said that B, when dying, did not declare that A had given B
the wound of which he died. The evidence is admissible
Comparison: Section 158 of BSA and Section 155 of the Indian Evidence Act

Section 158 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) is quite similar to Section
155 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which also deals with impeaching the credit
of a witness. Here’s a breakdown of the comparison:

1. Scope of Impeachment:

• Under Section 158 BSA, a party can challenge a witness’s credibility by

questioning their trustworthiness, bribery, or inconsistencies.
• Section 155 of the Indian Evidence Act allows similar challenges. It
specifically includes questioning the truthfulness of the witness, showing
prior bribery, proving earlier contradictory statements, or pointing out past
false evidence.
2. Testimony of Character :

Both sections permit others to testify that a witness is not credible due to
personal knowledge of their character.

3. Use of Past Statements :

Both sections allow the use of previous statements that conflict with the current
testimony to challenge a witness’s reliability.

Important Considerations:

• Section 159: This section permits questioning a witness about

circumstances they observed at or near the time and place of the relevant
fact to corroborate their testimony. For example, if an accomplice describes
details unrelated to the crime but observed during the event, independent
evidence of those details can strengthen their overall credibility.
• Section 160: This section allows the introduction of previous statements
made by the witness to corroborate their later testimony regarding the
 same fact. These statements can have been made at or about the time of
the event or before an authority investigating the matter.
• Explanation to Section 158: A witness who testifies that another witness is
unworthy of credit cannot provide reasons for their belief during their
examination-in-chief. However, they can be questioned about their reasons
during cross-examination, and their responses are not subject to
contradiction. However, if their responses are false, they could face charges
of giving false evidence.

Relevant Supreme court and High court case laws

1. Rajendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2023)

In this case, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of cross-

examination as a tool for impeaching the credit of a witness. The Court held that
contradictions between the witness’s statements made during the investigation
and in the courtroom could severely impact the witness’s credibility. The
judgment underlined that prior inconsistent statements could be crucial for
assessing a witness’s reliability.
Thus The ruling highlighted that previous contradictory statements by a witness
should be thoroughly scrutinized to determine their truthfulness.

2. Krishna Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC 130

This case revolved around the admissibility of prior statements and their effect
on a witness’s credibility. The Court emphasized that inconsistent statements
made before different authorities could be used to challenge the reliability of the
witness’s testimony. It reiterated that the process of impeaching credibility must
be carefully weighed against the context of the case.

It is established that, A witness’s previous statements made before different

forums can be a basis for impeaching credibility, particularly if they contradict
courtroom testimony.

3. Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana, (1976) 1 SCC 389

In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court clarified the use of testimony by
persons who claim that the witness is not trustworthy, in accordance with Section
155 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court highlighted that the evidence should
not merely attack the witness’s general character but should specifically relate to
the credibility of the statements made in the case at hand.

Testimony about a witness’s untrustworthiness must be specific and relevant to

the matter before the court.

4. Vijayan v. State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398

This judgment dealt with the challenge of witness credibility through the
evidence of character. The Court clarified that evidence from individuals familiar
with the witness’s character must be closely scrutinized for reliability. It
reiterated that such testimony should aim at the specific credibility of the witness
concerning the matter under examination, not merely their general reputation.

Evidence from persons familiar with the witness’s character should specifically
address credibility in the context of the case rather than general behavior.

5. Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana, (2016) 4 SCC 496

In this case, the Supreme Court focused on bribery or corrupt inducements as a

means to impeach a witness’s credit. It emphasized that any credible evidence of
bribery or inducement to influence testimony could severely damage the
witness’s reliability. The ruling highlighted the legal standards required to prove
bribery or corruption.

Proving bribery or corruption in relation to testimony requires substantial

evidence, but once established, it is a strong ground for discrediting a witness.

7. State of Maharashtra v. P.B. Deshmukh, (1979) 3 SCC 483

The Supreme Court discussed the use of cross-examination to expose

contradictions in a witness’s statements. It ruled th
7. State of Maharashtra v. P.B. Deshmukh, (1979) 3 SCC 483

The Supreme Court discussed the use of cross-examination to expose

contradictions in a witness’s statements. It ruled that effective cross-examination
is a vital component in impeaching a witness’s credibility, particularly when prior
inconsistent statements come to light.

Cross-examination plays a critical role in testing the reliability of a witness’s

testimony by bringing out inconsistencies.

8. Ram Singh v. Col. Ram Singh, (1985) Supp SCC 611

This judgment focused on the legal standard for using a witness’s past
inconsistent statements as grounds for impeachment. The Court clarified the
admissibility of such statements and the criteria for evaluating their relevance
and impact on credibility.

Not all inconsistent statements are relevant; only those that have a significant
bearing on the material facts of the case are admissible for impeaching credibility.
 Section 169

Section 169 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, states that
improper admission or rejection of evidence does not automatically justify a
new trial or reversal of a decision. The court must find that there was already
sufficient evidence to support the decision, or that the outcome would not have
changed even if the rejected evidence had been included1.

Section 169: No New Trial for Improper Admission or Rejection of Evidence

Key Points:

1. Improper Admission or Rejection: This section addresses situations where

evidence is improperly admitted or rejected during a trial.
2. No Automatic New Trial: The improper handling of evidence does not
automatically justify a new trial or reversal of a decision.
3. Court's Discretion: The court must determine if there was sufficient
evidence to support the decision independently of the improperly handled
evidence.
4. Outcome Unchanged: If the court finds that the outcome would not have
changed even if the improperly handled evidence had been correctly
admitted or rejected, a new trial or reversal is not warranted.