Section 151 in Indian Evidence Act 1872

Title: Indecent and scandalous questions

Description: 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.

Title: Questions intended to insult or annoy

Description: 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

Title: Exclusion of evidence to contradict answers to questions testing veracity

Description: 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 after wards 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 bloodfeud 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.

Title:  Question by party to his own witness

Description: 1[(1)] The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. 2[(2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.] 1. Section 154 numbered as sub-section (1) thereof by Act 2 of 2006, s. 9 (w.e.f. 16-4-2006). 2. Ins. by s. 9, ibid. (w.e.f. 16-4-2006).

Title: Impeaching credit of witness

Description: 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 bride, 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 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. 1. Subs. by Act 18 of 1872, s. 11, for "had". 2. Clause (4) omitted by Act 4 of 2003, s. 3 (w.e.f. 31-12-2002).