Indian Evidence Act, 1872 · Chapter X: Of the Examination of Witnesses
Section 155: Impeaching credit of witness
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 from 1 July 2024.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
The other side, or with the court's consent the party who called them, can impeach a witness's credit by evidence from people who believe the witness is not credible, by proof that the witness was bribed or corruptly induced, or by proof of earlier statements inconsistent with their evidence.
- A person saying a witness is not credible cannot give reasons in examination-in-chief, but can be asked them in cross-examination.
Example: C testifies he delivered goods to B. Evidence that C earlier said he had not delivered them is admissible.
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
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:––
(1) by the evidence of persons who testify that they, from their knowledge of the witness, believe him to be unworthy of credit;
(2) 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;
(3) by proof of former statements inconsistent with any part of his evidence which is liable to be contradicted. * * * * *
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.
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 the goods to B. The evidence is admissible.
(b) A is indicted for 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 the wound was not given by A or in his presence. The evidence is admissible.
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 155
-
K.P. Tamilmaran v. The State by Deputy Superintendent of Police
Whether the High Court was justified in upholding the conviction and sentence of A-15 under Sections 217, 218, Penal Code, 1860 and ss.3(2)(i), 4, SC/ST Act, 1989 and modifying the conviction and sentence of A-14, while…
-
Goverdhan & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh
The two accused-appellants and their father-the third accused, were convicted by the trial court u/s.302 r/w s.34 IPC for assaulting a person with deadly weapons causing his death. High Court upheld the conviction of…
-
Alauddin & Ors. v. The State of Assam & Anr.
Matter pertains to correctness of the order convicting the appellants for the offences punishable u/ss. 302/149 IPC when the statements in evidence full of omissions and contradictions and the evidence of last seen…
-
Shailesh Kumar v. State of U.P. (Now State of Uttarakhand)
What is the goal of investigation and what is the role of investigating officer; Are s.172 CrPC and ss. 145 & 161 of the Evidence Act to be read in consonance with each other; Can a General Diary entry precede the…
-
Birbal Nath v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors
Whether the High Court was justified in acquitting the accused for the major offences u/ss. 302 and 307 IPC, and convicting them only for the offences u/ss. 147, 148, 323, 324, 325/149 and reducing their sentences to…
- Ashok Kumar Singh Chandel v. State of U.P.
- Bhagwan Jagannath Markad & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra
- State of Karnataka v. Smt. Suvarnamma & Anr.
- Akil@ Javed v. State of NCT of Delhi
- Bishna@ Bhiswadeb Mahato and Ors. v. State of West Bengal
- Munshi Prasad and Ors. v. State of Bihar
- Sukhdev Yadav and Ors. v. State of Bihar
- Rammi @ Rameshwar Etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh
- State of Kerala v. Babu and Ors.
- State of Rajasthan v. Teja Ram and Ors.
- Binay Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar
- Kehar Singh & Ors. v. State (Delhi Admn.)
- Prakash Chand v. State (Delhi Administration)
- Shri N. Sri Rama Reddy Etc. v. Suri v. V. Giri
- Yusufalli Esmail Nagree v. The State of Maharashtra