Section 138 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 138 : Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Order of examinations.—Witnesses shall be first examined-in-chief, then (if the adverse party so desires) cross-examined, then (if the party calling him so desires) re-examined. The examination and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts, but the cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his examination-in-chief. Direction of re-examination.—The re-examination shall be directed to the explanation of matters referred to in cross-examination; and, if new matter is, by permission of the Court, introduced in re-examination, the adverse party may further cross-examine upon that matter.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 138 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Vellanki Leasing And Finance Pvt. vs Pfimex Pharmaceuticals Ltd. on 3 December, 2007 - Andhra High Court
Peacock Industries Ltd., Mr. Daud vs Budhrani Finance Ltd. on 14 July, 2006 - Bombay High Court
C.C. Alavi Haji vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr on 18 May, 2007 - Supreme Court of India
Banwari Lal And Anr. vs State on 23 December, 1955 - Allahabad High Court
Jain Associates And Ors. vs Deepak Chawdhary & Co. on 16 April, 1999 - Delhi High Court
Shri Apurva (Proprietor) A.D. vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 December, 2014 - Allahabad High Court
M/S Super Cassettes Industries vs Sri.G M Hulbanni Prop: M/S Adarsh on 25 August, 2012 - Karnataka High Court
Dwarka Dass And Ors. vs State And Ors. on 31 August, 1978 - Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Vinod Tyagi vs State Of U.P. And Another on 20 April, 2015 - Allahabad High Court
Shri Gurdial Singh vs M/S. Arudatta Triotex Engineers  on 7 June, 2011 - Bombay High Court 

Section 137 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 137 : Section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Examination-in-chief.—The examination of a witness by the party who calls him shall be called his examination-in-chief. 

Cross-examination.—The examination of a witness by the adverse party shall be called his cross-examination. 

Re-examination.—The examination of a witness, subsequent to the cross-examination by the party who called him, shall be called his re-examination.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 137 Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Tanajirao Martinrao Kadambande vs H.J. Chinoy on 4 February, 1969 - Bombay High Court 

Debasis Sahu vs Nabeen Chandra Sahu And Anr. on 5 July, 2002 - Orissa High Court 

Ginning Factory vs Gulabchand on 25 June, 2013 - Bombay High Court 

Atul Bora vs Akan Bora on 19 December, 2006 - Gauhati High Court 

Dwarka Dass And Ors. vs State And Ors. on 31 August, 1978 - Jammu & Kashmir High Court 

Asokan vs State Of Kerala on 3 August, 2005 - Kerala High Court 

Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker vs State Of Gujarat on 19 March, 1964 - Supreme Court of India 

Bhujang Nathuji Daf vs Ramkrishna Daulat Daf on 12 November, 2008 - Bombay High Court 

Tanala Satyanarayana vs Tanali Ramarao And Ors. on 23 December, 2005 - Andhra High Court 

Abul Hassan Molla vs State Of West Bengal on 20 March, 2008 - Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Section 136 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 136 : Section 136 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Judge to decide as to admissibility of evidence.—When either party proposes to give evidence of any fact, the Judge may ask the party proposing to give the evidence in what manner the alleged fact, if proved, would be relevant; and the Judge shall admit the evidence if he thinks that the fact, if proved, would be relevant, and not otherwise. If the fact proposed to be proved is one of which evidence is admissible only upon proof of some other fact, such last-mentioned fact must be proved before evidence is given of the fact first mentioned, unless the party undertakes to give proof of such fact, and the Court is satisfied with such undertaking. If the relevancy of one alleged fact depends upon another alleged fact being first proved, the Judge may, in his discretion, either permit evidence of the first fact to be given before the second fact is proved, or require evidence to be given of the second fact before evidence is given of the first fact. Illustrations

(a) It is proposed to prove a statement about a relevant fact by a person alleged to be dead, which statement is relevant under section 32. The fact that the person is dead must be proved by the person proposing to prove the statement, before evidence is given of the statement.

(b) It is proposed to prove, by a copy, the contents of a document said to be lost. The fact that the original is lost must be proved by the person proposing to produce the copy, before the copy is produced.

(c) A is accused of receiving stolen property knowing it to have been stolen. It is proposed to prove that he denied the possession of the property. The relevancy of the denial depends on the identity of the property. The Court may, in its discretion, either require the property to be identified before the denial of the possession is proved, or permit the denial of the possession to be proved before the property is identified.

(d) It is proposed to prove a fact (A) which is said to have been the cause or effect of a fact in issue. There are several intermediate facts (B, C and D) which must be shown to exist before the fact (A) can be regarded as the cause or effect of the fact in issue. The Court may either permit A to be proved before B, C or D is proved, or may require proof of B, C and D before permitting proof of A.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 136 Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Mr. Jitendra Singh Rajendra Singh vs Mr.Mayur Khandeparkar I/By Nitin on 29 October, 2013 - Bombay High Court 

Mrs Mahabanoo Navroz Kotwal vs Piloo Fali Bomanji on 10 June, 2014 - Bombay High Court 

State Of Gujarat vs Shailendra Kamalkishor Pande on 29 June, 2007 - Gujarat High Court 

State Of Gujarat vs Ashulal Nanji Bisnol on 1 October, 2001 - Gujarat High Court 

Abid vs State on 17 June, 2010 - Gujarat High Court 

V. Arulkumar : vs The State on 5 March, 2013 - Madras High Court 

Ghewar Chand vs State Of Rajasthan on 22 November, 1996 - Rajasthan High Court 

Ram Singh & Ors vs Col. Ram Slngh on 7 August, 1985 - Supreme Court of India 

M/S. Supreme Chemiplast vs State Of Karnataka on 19 August, 2014 - Karnataka High Court 

M/S.Reliance Industries Ltd. } vs The State Of Maharashtra on 17 March, 2010 - Bombay High Court

Section 135 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 135 : Section 135 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Order of production and examination of witnesses.—The order in which witnesses are produced and examined shall be regulated by the law and practice for the time being relating to civil and criminal procedure respectively, and, in the absence of any such law, by the discretion of the Court.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 135 Indian Evidence Act 1872:

K.I. Pavunny vs Assistant Collector (Head on 3 February, 1997 - Supreme Court of India 

Mohammed Salim Ibrahim Qureshi vs State Of Gujarat on 3 March, 2006 - Gujarat High Court 

Itc Bhadrachalam Paperborads & vs Mandal Revenue Officer, on 9 September, 1996 - Supreme Court of India 

Dineshkumar Becharbhai Gameti vs State Of Gujarat on 6 August, 1998 - Gujarat High Court 

Gangasharan Raghavallabh Sharma vs State Of Gujarat & on 26 August, 2013 - Gujarat High Court 

Sardara Singh Alias Saadh Son Of S. vs Assistant Collector(Custom) on 1 April, 2009 - Punjab-Haryana High Court 

Bhanabhai Khalpabhai vs Collector Of Customs on 8 March, 1994 - Supreme Court of India 

Percy Rustam Basta vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 March, 1971 - Supreme Court of India 

Romesh Chandra Mehta vs State Of West Bengal on 18 October, 1968 - Supreme Court of India 

State (Collector Of Central vs Tapan Kumar Shome on 19 June, 1984 - Orissa High Court 

Section 166 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 166 : Section 166 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Power of jury or assessors to put questions.—In cases tried by jury or with assessors, the jury or assessors may put any question to the witnesses, through or by leave of the Judge, which the Judge himself might put and which he considers proper.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 166 Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Vaman Narain Ghiya vs State on 15 January, 2014 - Rajasthan High Court 

Ronny @ Ronald James Alwaris Etc vs State Of Maharashtra on 5 March, 1998 - Supreme Court of India 

First Appeal No.526 Of 2012 vs Unknown on 22 August, 2013 - Bombay High Court 

Kesho Ram & Ors. vs Joga Ram & Ors. on 20 April, 2009 - Delhi High Court 

Srichand P. Hinduja vs State Through C.B.I. on 31 May, 2005 - Delhi High Court 

Dibyalata Konwar vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. on 22 January, 2008 - Gauhati High Court 

Avasarala Venkata Hanumantha Rao vs Avasarala Achanna on 7 January, 1915 - Madras High Court 

In Re: A.V. Hanumantha Rao And Anr. vs Unknown on 7 January, 1915 - Madras High Court 

Chandan Prakash & Anr. vs Vidya Devi & Ors. on 14 August, 2012 - Delhi High Court 

The Empress vs Ashootosh Chuckerbutty And Ors. on 10 July, 1878 - Calcutta High Court 

Section 165 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 165 : Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Judge’s power to put questions or order production.—The Judge may, in order to discover or to obtain proper proof of relevant facts, ask any question he pleases, in any form, at any time, of any witness, or of the parties, about any fact relevant or irrelevant; and may order the production of any document or thing; and neither the parties nor their agents shall be entitled to make any objection to any such question or order, nor, without the leave of the Court, to cross-examine any witness upon any answer given in reply to any such question: Provided that the Judgment must be based upon facts declared by this Act to be relevant, and duly proved: Provided also that this section shall not authorize any Judge to compel any witness to answer any question, or to produce any document which such witness would be entitled to refuse to answer or produce under sections 121 to 131, both inclusive, if the questions were asked or the documents were called for by the adverse party; nor shall the Judge ask any question which it would be improper for any other person to ask under section 148 or 149; nor shall he dispense with primary evidence of any document, except in the cases hereinbefore excepted.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 165 Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Shivani Sharma vs Ram Chander And Ors. on 22 February, 2013 - Delhi High Court 

D.B. Bhappu vs Parasmal Nemaji Bhimani on 5 September, 1975 - Bombay High Court 

Sanchaita Investments And Ors. vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 5 March, 1981 - Calcutta High Court 

Hs Bedi vs National Highway Authority on 22 January, 2016 - Delhi High Court 

Ved Parkash Kharbanda vs Vimal Bindal on 8 March, 2013 - Delhi High Court 

Raghunandan vs State Of U.P on 10 January, 1974 - Supreme Court of India 

Ernakulam vs By Advs.Sri.K.Ramakumar (Sr.) - Kerala High Court 

Kamleshwari Yadav @ Kamleshwar vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Anr on 23 June, 2010 - Patna High Court 

State vs Harbans Lal on 27 September, 1968 - Delhi High Court 

Section 164 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 164 : Section 164 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Using, as evidence, of document, production of which was refused on notice.—When a party refuses to produce a document which he has had notice to produce, he cannot afterwards use the document as evidence without the consent of the other party or the order of the Court. Illustration A sues B on an agreement and gives B notice to produce it. At the trial, A calls for the document and B refuses to produce it. A gives secondary evidence of its contents. B seeks to produce the document itself to contradict the secondary evidence given by A, or in order to show that the agreement is not stamped. He cannot do so.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 164 Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Rangappa Hanamappa And Anr. vs State on 8 September, 1953 - Bombay High Court 

Shanti And Anr. vs The State on 4 May, 1977 - Orissa High Court 

Rangappa Hanamappa And Anr. vs State on 8 September, 1953 - Bombay High Court 

Sheo Raj vs State on 8 October, 1963 - Allahabad High Court 

State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Singhara Singh And Others on 16 August, 1963 - Supreme Court of India 

Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav vs The State Of Bihar Thru. Cbi on 17 May, 2013 - Patna High Court 

Rajan Tiwary vs State Of Bihar Thru.C.B.I on 17 May, 2013 - Patna High Court 

Anil Kumar Yadav vs The State Of Bihar Thru.Cbi on 17 May, 2013 - Patna High Court 

State Of Madras vs G. Krishnan on 22 August, 1960 - Madras High Court 

Section 163 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 163 : Section 163 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Giving, as evidence, of document called for and produced on notice.—When a party calls for a document which he has given the other party notice to produce, and such document is produced and inspected by the party calling for its production, he is bound to give it as evidence if the party producing it requires him to do so.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 163 Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Phoolchand Garg vs Gopaldas Agarwal And Ors. on 26 September, 1989 - Madhya Pradesh High Court 

Natabar Jana vs State And Anr. on 6 December, 1954 - Calcutta High Court 

Hiten P. Dalal vs Stardard Chartered Bank on 18 April, 2000 - Supreme Court of India 

Standard Chartered Bank And Anr.  vs Custodian And Anothe Etc on 18 April, 2000 - Supreme Court of India 

Union Of India (Uoi) vs Firm Vishudh Ghee Vyopar Mandal on 2 April, 1953 - Allahabad High Court 

Md.Ajmal Md.Amir Kasab @Abu vs State Of Maharashtra on 29 August, 2012 - Supreme Court of India 

Gama And Anr. vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 18 July, 1986 - Allahabad High Court 

Rajesh Bhatia And Ors. vs G. Parimala And Anr. on 30 November, 2005 - Andhra High Court 

Government Of Bengal vs Santiram Mondal on 27 February, 1930 - Calcutta High Court 

Rajiv Gupta And Others vs Jiwan Lal And Others on 19 March, 2009 - Punjab-Haryana High Court 

Section 162 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 162 : Section 162 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Production of documents.—A witness summoned to produce a document shall, if it is in his possession or power, bring it to the Court, notwithstanding any objection which there may be to its production or to its admissibility. The validity of any such objection shall be decided on by the Court. The Court, if it sees, fit, may inspect the document, unless it refers to matters of State, or take other evidence to enable it to determine on its admissibility. Translation of documents.—If for such a purpose it is necessary to cause any document to be translated, the Court may, if it thinks fit, direct the translator to keep the contents secret, unless the document is to be given in evidence: and, if the interpreter disobeys such direction, he shall be held to have committed an offence under section 166 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 162 Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Naresh Chandra Das And Anr. vs Emperor on 28 August, 1941 - Calcutta High Court 

The State Of Punjab vs Sodhi Sukhdev Singh on 15 November, 1960 - Supreme Court of India 

Baldeo And Ors. vs Emperor on 23 February, 1940 - Allahabad High Court 

In Re: Syamo Maha Patro And Anr. vs Unknown on 11 February, 1932 - Madras High Court 

Vishnu Krishna Belurkar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 February, 1974 - Bombay High Court 

Deoman Upadhyaya vs State on 24 August, 1959 - Allahabad High Court 

State Of U.P vs Raj Narain & Ors on 24 January, 1975 - Supreme Court of India 

Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma vs The State Of Bombay. on 22 October, 1954 - Supreme Court of India 

Tahsildar Singh And Another vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 5 May, 1959 - Supreme Court of India 

Nathu Manchhu vs The State Of Gujarat on 15 April, 1977 - Gujarat High Court 

Section 161 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 161 : Section 161 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Right of adverse party as to writing used to refresh memory.—Any writing referred to under the provisions of the two last preceding sections must be produced and shown to the adverse party if he requires it; such party may, if he pleases, cross-examine the witness thereupon.1161. Right of adverse party as to writing used to refresh memory.—Any writing referred to under the provisions of the two last preceding sections must be produced and shown to the adverse party if he requires it; such party may, if he pleases, cross-examine the witness thereupon."

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 161 Indian Evidence Act 1872:

State (Gnct Of Delhi) vs Sidhartha Vashisht on 22 May, 2013 - Delhi High Court 

Ranjit Singh vs State on 3 October, 1997 - Delhi High Court 

Smt. Minati Das vs Radhakanta Patra And Ors. on 12 July, 1993 - Calcutta High Court 

State vs Harbans Lal on 27 September, 1968 - Delhi High Court 

Nandini Satpathy vs Dani (P.L.) And Anr on 7 April, 1978 - Supreme Court of India 

In Re: Syamo Maha Patro And Anr. vs Unknown on 11 February, 1932 - Madras High Court 

Avinash Kumar vs State on 18 December, 1962 - Allahabad High Court 

Dalla And Anr. vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 October, 1986 - Rajasthan High Court 

Chandrasinh @ Chandubha Lalubha vs State Of Gujarat on 6 July, 2001 - Gujarat High Court 

Section 160 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 160 : Section 160 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Testimony to facts stated in document mentioned in section 159.—A witness may also testify to facts mentioned in any such document as is mentioned in section 159, although he has no specific recollection of the facts themselves, if he is sure that the facts were correctly recorded in the document. Illustration A book-keeper may testify to facts recorded by him in books regularly kept in the course of business, if he knows that the books were correctly kept, although he has forgotten the particular transactions entered.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 160 Indian Evidence Act 1872:

In Re: Syamo Maha Patro And Anr. vs Unknown on 11 February, 1932 - Madras High Court 

Kanti Prasad Jayshanker Yagnik vs Purshottamdas Ranchhoddas Patel on 24 January, 1969 - Supreme Court of India 

Dharma vs The State on 27 July, 1965 - Rajasthan High Court 

The State vs C. Ronald And Ors. on 1 October, 2004 - Calcutta High Court 

Mohansingh Laxmansingh vs Bhanwarlal Rajmal Nahata And Ors. on 14 February, 1963 - Madhya Pradesh High Court 

V.P. Padmanabhan Nair And Ors. vs Grasim Industries, Mavoor on 22 May, 1997 - Kerala High Court 

Gopal Khaitan vs The King on 9 May, 1949 - Calcutta High Court  

Naginlal Nandlal vs State Of Gujarat on 6 July, 1961 - Gujarat High Court  

State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao & Anr on 23 April, 1963 - Supreme Court of India  

In Re: Krishnama Naicken And Anr. vs Unknown on 2 October, 1930 - Madras High Court  

Section 159 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 159 : Section 159 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Refreshing memory.—A witness may, while under examination, refresh his memory by referring to any writing made by himself at the time of the transaction concerning which he is questioned, or so soon afterwards that the Court considers it likely that the transaction was at that time fresh in his memory. The witness may also refer to any such writing made by any other person, and read by the witness within the time aforesaid, if when he read it he knew it to be correct. When witness may use copy of document to refresh memory.—Whenever a witness may refresh his memory by reference to any document, he may, with the permission of the Court, refer to a copy of such document: Provided the Court be satisfied that there is sufficient reason for the non-production of the original. An expert may refresh his memory by reference to professional treatises.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 159 Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Naginlal Nandlal vs State Of Gujarat on 6 July, 1961 - Gujarat High Court 

V.P. Padmanabhan Nair And Ors. vs Grasim Industries, Mavoor on 22 May, 1997 - Kerala High Court 

Whether vs Unknown on 12 August, 2011 - Gujarat High Court 

Dharma vs The State on 27 July, 1965 - Rajasthan High Court 

V.M. Thomas vs Registrar Of Companies on 13 November, 1978 - Kerala High Court 

Sridhar vs State Of Karnataka on 13 September, 2004 - Karnataka High Court 

Bhogilal Chunilal Pandya vs The State Of Bombay on 4 November, 1958 - Supreme Court of India 

Sarju And Anr. vs The State Of West Bengal on 5 June, 1960 - Calcutta High Court 

State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao & Anr on 23 April, 1963 - Supreme Court of India 

In Re: Krishnama Naicken And Anr. vs Unknown on 2 October, 1930 - Madras High Court 

Section 158 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 158 : Section 158 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

What matters may be proved in connection with proved statement relevant under section 32 or 33.—Whenever any statement, relevant under section 32 or 33, is proved, all matters may be proved, either in order to contradict or to corroborate it, or in order to impeach or confirm the credit of the person by whom it was made, which might have been proved if that person had been called as a witness and had denied upon cross-examination of the truth the matter suggested.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 158 Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Sm. Krishna Subala Bose And Ors. vs Dhanapati Dutta And Ors. on 9 December, 1955 - Calcutta High Court 

Aher Lakhman Bhura vs State Of Gujarat on 19 October, 1994 - Gujarat High Court 

Parmanand Gupta vs Smt.Bhagwati Devi on 11 December, 2014 - Madhya Pradesh High Court 

Mst. Ramrati Kuer vs Dwarika Prasad Singh And Ors on 24 August, 1966 - Supreme Court of India 

Prakash Sholaram vs State Of Gujarat on 21 July, 1999 - Gujarat High Court 

In Re: Guruswami Tevar And Ors. vs Unknown on 4 December, 1939 - Madras High Court 

Bhondu vs Rex on 25 October, 1948 - Allahabad High Court 

Age 40 Years vs The State Of Maharashtra on 23 December, 2011 - Bombay High Court  

Bhondu vs Rex. on 25 October, 1948 - Allahabad High Court 

Vijay vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 February, 2014 - Bombay High Court 

Section 157 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 157 : Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Former statements of witness may be proved to corroborate later testimony as to same fact.—In order to corroborate the testimony of a witness, any former statement made by such witness relating to the same fact, at or about the time when the fact took place, or before any authority legally competent to investigate the fact, may be proved.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 157 Indian Evidence Act 1872:

The King-Emperor vs Nilakanta Alias Brahmachari on 15 February, 1912 - Madras High Court 

Muthukumarsawmi Pillai And Ors. vs Emperor on 17 April, 1912 - Madras High Court 

Muthukumaraswami Pillai vs King-Emperor on 17 April, 1912 - Madras High Court 

Bhogilal Chunilal Pandya vs The State Of Bombay on 4 November, 1958 - Supreme Court of India 

Sarju And Anr. vs The State Of West Bengal on 5 June, 1960 - Calcutta High Court 

Ramratan And Others vs The State Of Rajasthan on 13 September, 1961 - Supreme Court of India 

Naginlal Nandlal vs State Of Gujarat on 6 July, 1961 - Gujarat High Court 

Vishnu Krishna Belurkar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 February, 1974 - Bombay High Court 

Rustam And Ors. vs Emperor on 16 March, 1910 - Allahabad High Court 

Dinkar Bandhu Deshmukh And Anr. vs State on 25 November, 1969 - Bombay High Court 

Section 156 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 156 : Section 156 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Questions tending to corroborate evidence of relevant fact, admissible.—When a witness whom it is intended to corroborate gives evidence of any relevant fact, he may be questioned as to any other circumstances which he observed at or near to the time or place at which such relevant fact occurred, if the Court is of opinion that such circumstances, if proved, would corroborate the testimony of the witness as to the relevant fact which he testifies. Illustration A, an accomplice, gives an account of a robbery in which he took part. He describes various incidents unconnected with the robbery which occurred on his way to and from the place where it was committed. Independent evidence of these facts may be given in order to corroborate his evidence as to the robbery itself.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 156 Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Ramdev Food Products Private vs State Of Gujarat on 16 March, 2015 - Supreme Court of India 

Shivraj Singh Chauhan vs The State Of Bihar (D.G.P.Bihar) on 6 April, 2014 - Patna High Court 

Nirmaljit Singh Hoon vs The State Of West Bengal And Anr on 6 September, 1972 - Supreme Court of India 

Radha vs State on 18 May, 2011 - Delhi High Court 

Sudhakar Ramkrushna Gangane vs State Of Maharashtra on 19 August, 2013 - Bombay High Court 

Amin Shariff vs Emperor on 21 February, 1934 - Calcutta High Court 

Mohammad Shafi Shah And Ors. vs State Of J. And K. And Ors. on 15 July, 2000 - Jammu & Kashmir High Court 

Jiley Singh vs State Of U.P.And Others on 21 January, 2010 - Allahabad High Court 

Smt. Urwashi Gangwar vs State Of U.P. on 16 July, 2010 - Allahabad High Court 

Abdul Hakeem Alias Gabbad vs State Of U.P. on 28 July, 2010 - Allahabad High Court 

Section 155 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 155 : Section 155 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Impeaching credit of 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:—

(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 1[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;

2[***]

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 the 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.

————————

Subs. by Act 18 of 1872, sec. 11, for “had”.

Clause (4) omitted by Act 4 of 2003, sec. 3 (w.r.e.f. 31-12-2002). Clause (a), before omission, stood as under:

“(4) when a man is prosecuted for rape or an attempt to ravish, it may be shown that the prosecutrix was of generally immoral character”.”

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 155 Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Tara Chand Rampal vs The State on 15 February, 1974 - Delhi High Court

State vs Jasbir Singh @ Billa And Kuljeet ... on 16 November, 1979 - Delhi High Court

Kehar Singh & Ors vs State (Delhi Admn.) on 3 August, 1988 - Supreme Court of India

Tahsildar Singh And Another vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 5 May, 1959 - Supreme Court of India

Tuesday vs Shajahan @ Shajan on 7 August, 2012 - Kerala High Court

Rup Chand vs Mahabir Parshad And Anr. on 15 May, 1956 - Punjab and Haryana High Court

Section 154 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 154 : Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Question by party to his own witness.- (1) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party

*[(2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under subsection (1) to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.]

*[Inserted vide Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2005]

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 154 Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Atul Bora vs Akan Bora on 19 December, 2006 - Gauhati High Court 

S. Murugesan And 2 Others vs S. Pethaperumal And 2 Others on 21 October, 1998 - Madras High Court 

Ammathayarammal vs The Official Assignee on 3 March, 1932 - Madras High Court 

Profulla Kumar Sarkar And Ors. vs Emperor on 3 March, 1931 - Calcutta High Court 

Mani Mohan Ghose vs Emperor on 12 February, 1931 - Calcutta High Court 

Tara Chand Rampal vs The State on 15 February, 1974 - Delhi High Court  

State vs Rajendrakumar on 20 January, 2010 - Gujarat High Court 

Rehana Begum vs Mirza M. Shaiulla Baig And Ors. on 2 June, 2005 - Karnataka High Court 

Sivhamurthy Swamy vs Agodi Songanno on 15 September, 1967 - Karnataka High Court 

Section 153 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 153 : Section 153 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

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 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 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.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 153 Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Shobha vs Unknown - Kerala High Court  

Shri N. Sri Rama Reddy Etc vs Shri V. V. Giri on 27 April, 1970 - Supreme Court of India 

Lior Avi Ben Moyal vs Narcotics Control Bureau on 28 November, 2008 - Punjab-Haryana High Court 

State Of Gujarat vs Shailendra Kamalkishor Pande on 29 June, 2007 - Gujarat High Court 

K.Rajendran vs Kerala State Election Commission on 30 November, 2012 - Kerala High Court 

R K Chandolia vs Cbi & Ors on 11 April, 2012 - Delhi High Court 

Kamal Kanto Das vs The State on 17 December, 1958 - Calcutta High Court 

State Of Karnataka vs K. Yarappa Reddy on 5 October, 1999 - Supreme Court of India 

Emperor vs Rahimatalli Mahomedalli Mulla on 30 September, 1919 - Bombay High Court 

Crr No. 398 Of 2013 (O&M) vs State Of Haryana on 2 May, 2013 - Punjab-Haryana High Court 

Section 152 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 152 : Section 152 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Questions intended to insult or annoy.—The Court shall forbid any question which appears to it to be intended to insult or annoy, or which, though proper in itself, appears to the Court needlessly offensive in form.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 152 Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Shri Gita Ram Kalsy And Ors. vs Shri Arjan Singh Kalsy And Ors. on 16 February, 1996 - Punjab-Haryana High Court  

Prakash Rajaram And Ors. vs State Of Maharashtra on 19 February, 1974 - Bombay High Court 

R K Chandolia vs Cbi & Ors on 11 April, 2012 - Delhi High Court  

Chandra Shekhar Rai vs The State Of Bihar on 19 June, 2013 - Patna High Court  

Ayeasha Bi vs Peerkhan Sahib And Ors. on 5 January, 1953 - Madras High Court  

M/S Punjab State Industrial vs Mr. Sunil K. Kansal on 11 October, 2012 - Punjab-Haryana High Court 

Rajesh V. Choudhary vs Kshitij R. Torka And Anr on 15 September, 2015 - Bombay High Court  

Surendran vs State And Ors. on 27 August, 1993 - Kerala High Court  

Beni Ram Sarugs vs Mahomed Abdullah on 5 May, 1909 - Calcutta High Court  

Brundaban Mohapatra And Ors. vs Kulamani Mishra on 30 September, 1985 - Orissa High Court 

Section 151 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 151 : Section 151 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Indecent and scandalous questions.—The Court may forbid any questions or inquiries which it regards as indecent or scandalous, although such questions or inquiries may have some bearing on the questions before the Court, unless they relate to facts in issue, or to matters necessary to be known in order to determine whether or not the facts in issue existed.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 151 Indian Evidence Act 1872:

A.K. Sharafudin vs S. Jagadeesan on 20 March, 1950 - Karnataka High Court 

Smt. Ningamma And Another vs Chikkaiah And Another on 10 August, 1999 - Karnataka High Court 

K.K. Velusamy vs N. Palaanisamy on 30 March, 2011 - Supreme Court of India 

Radha Kishan vs Navratan Mal Jain And Anr. on 30 August, 1989 - Rajasthan High Court 

R K Chandolia vs Cbi & Ors on 11 April, 2012 - Delhi High Court 

Krishnamurthi Aiyar vs Govindaswami Pillai And Anr. on 3 September, 1965 - Madras High Court 

Prakash Rajaram And Ors. vs State Of Maharashtra on 19 February, 1974 - Bombay High Court 

V.Pandi vs M.Thyagarajan on 18 July, 2012 - Madras High Court 

Shivlal Amarji And Sons vs Maganlal Lakhmichand on 28 March, 1966 - Gujarat High Court 

Sk. Nafel Ali vs Sm. Nihar Bala Das on 23 July, 1981 - Calcutta High Court