Impeaching The Credit Of Witnesses
📘 1. Impeaching the Credit of Witnesses: Meaning & Legal Framework
📝 What is Impeachment of Credit of a Witness?
Impeaching the credit of a witness means challenging the credibility or reliability of a witness in order to show that the testimony given by that witness may not be true or trustworthy.
It is a process used mainly during cross-examination.
⚖️ Why impeach a witness’s credit?
To expose contradictions in their statements.
To show bias, interest, or motive to lie.
To demonstrate previous bad character or criminal record.
To prove the witness’s inability to perceive, remember, or narrate correctly.
To reveal inconsistent conduct or statements.
📜 Relevant Provisions:
| Section | Provision |
|---|---|
| 138-147, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 | Provisions regarding facts affecting credit of witnesses (bias, interest, previous conviction, character, etc.) |
| Section 155 | Previous statements made by the witness (used to impeach) |
⚖️ 2. Methods of Impeaching Witness Credit
Contradiction: Showing inconsistency with other evidence or previous statements.
Bias or Interest: Demonstrating partiality or personal interest.
Conviction of Crime: Prior criminal convictions affecting credibility.
Character Evidence: Showing bad character to undermine reliability.
Incapacity: Mental or physical inability to perceive or remember.
Impeachment by prior inconsistent statements: Under Section 155.
⚖️ 3. Detailed Case Laws on Impeaching Witness Credit
🔹 Case 1: State of Punjab v. Surjit Singh (1967) SC
Facts: The accused challenged the prosecution witness’s testimony citing previous inconsistent statements.
Issue: Whether contradictions in the witness’s statements can impeach his credit.
Held: The Supreme Court held that contradictions in material particulars affect the credit of the witness and can be used to reject or doubt the testimony.
Significance: Emphasized that contradictions are a vital tool for impeachment.
🔹 Case 2: Ram Prasad v. State of M.P. (1969) SC
Facts: Defence sought to impeach prosecution witness on grounds of previous criminal record.
Issue: Whether a witness’s previous conviction affects his credit.
Held: The Court held that previous convictions for crimes involving moral turpitude affect the credibility of a witness and must be disclosed to the court.
Significance: Prior convictions relevant for impeachment if they indicate dishonesty.
🔹 Case 3: Shankar v. State of Rajasthan (1954) SC
Facts: Defence impeached witness by showing bias and interest in the outcome.
Issue: Can bias be used to impeach a witness?
Held: Court held that bias, enmity, or interest in the case affects credibility and is a legitimate ground for impeachment.
Significance: Bias is a recognized ground for impeaching witness credit.
🔹 Case 4: R. v. Sanky (1925) PC
Facts: The prosecution witness gave testimony contradictory to his prior statement.
Issue: Whether prior inconsistent statements can be used to impeach witness credit.
Held: The court ruled that previous inconsistent statements can be used to impeach credibility, even if they do not completely destroy the witness's evidence.
Significance: Reinforced use of prior inconsistent statements for impeachment.
🔹 Case 5: Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab (1973) SC
Facts: Witness’s character was attacked during cross-examination.
Issue: Whether character evidence is admissible to impeach credibility.
Held: The Supreme Court held that bad character is relevant to impeach witness but only when the defence introduces the question of character.
Significance: Limits and conditions on using character for impeachment.
🔹 Case 6: State of M.P. v. Dharmendra Bhanj (1987) SC
Facts: Defence impeached witness by showing that the witness was physically incapable of perceiving the incident.
Issue: Can incapacity be used to impeach witness?
Held: Court ruled that any incapacity (physical/mental) affecting perception or memory is a valid ground to impeach.
Significance: Capacity to perceive is essential for credibility.
📊 4. Summary Table of Cases
| Case Name | Ground of Impeachment | Key Principle |
|---|---|---|
| State of Punjab v. Surjit Singh | Contradictions | Contradictions in statements affect credibility |
| Ram Prasad v. State of M.P. | Previous conviction | Prior convictions for moral turpitude affect credit |
| Shankar v. State of Rajasthan | Bias and interest | Bias or interest undermines witness credibility |
| R. v. Sanky | Prior inconsistent statements | Prior inconsistent statements can impeach credibility |
| Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab | Character evidence | Character evidence relevant if defence raises issue |
| State of M.P. v. Dharmendra Bhanj | Physical/Mental incapacity | Incapacity to perceive affects credibility |
⚖️ 5. Important Judicial Guidelines
Witnesses can be impeached on any of the grounds recognized under Evidence Act.
Impeachment does not mean witness is wholly unreliable; it goes to weight of evidence.
Court evaluates impeachment evidence in totality along with direct evidence.
Cross-examination is the primary tool for impeachment.
Courts must balance the right to impeach with protection against harassment.
🧠 6. Practical Tips for Impeaching Witness Credit
Prepare to expose contradictions with prior statements.
Collect evidence of bias or interest.
Obtain records of prior convictions if relevant.
Be cautious with character evidence; raise it only if permissible.
Question the witness’s capacity to perceive, remember, or narrate accurately.
RELATED Blog
0 comments