Indian Evidence Act, 1872 · Chapter IX: Of Witnesses
Section 132: Witness not excused from answering on ground that answer will criminate
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to matters and proceedings from before that date, as the repealing law provides.
In plain words
A witness cannot refuse to answer a relevant question on the ground that the answer may incriminate them or expose them to a penalty or forfeiture. But an answer they are compelled to give cannot lead to their arrest or prosecution, or be used against them in a criminal case, except a prosecution for giving false evidence in that answer.
A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.
Official text
A witness shall not be excused from answering any question as to any matter relevant to the matter in issue in any suit or in any civil or criminal proceeding, upon the ground that the answer to such question will criminate, or may tend directly or indirectly to criminate, such witness, or that it will expose, or tend directly or indirectly to expose, such witness to a penalty or forfeiture of any kind: Proviso.––Provided that no such answer, which a witness shall be compelled to give, shall subject him to any arrest or prosecution, or be proved against him in any criminal proceeding, except a prosecution for giving false evidence by such answer.
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 132
-
Raghuveer Sharan v. District Sahakari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank & Anr.
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is entitled for protection under Section 132 of the Evidence Act, 1872 as his statement was recorded earlier at the pre-summoning stage as a witness for…
- R. Dineshkumar @ Deena v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police & Others
- State of Maharashtra v. Kamal Ahmed Mohammed Vakil Ansari & Ors.
- Chandran @ Manichan @ Maniyan v. State of Kerala
- Balasaheb @ Ramesh Laxman Deshmukh v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
- State of Maharashtra v. Abu Salem Abdul Kayyam Ansari and Ors.
- Smt. Selvi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka
- Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India and Ors.
- State (Delhi Admn.) v. Jagjit Singh
- S.P. Gupta & Ors. Etc. Etc. v. Union of India & Ors. Etc. Etc.
- Raghblr Singh Gill v. Gurcharan Singh Tohra & Ors.
- Hira H. Advani Etc. v. State of Maharashtra
- Laxmipat Choraria and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra
- Shyamlal Mobanlal v. State of Gujarat
- Raja Narayanlal Bansilal v. Maneck Phjhoz Misthy and Another.
- M. P. Sharma and Others v. Satish Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi, and Others