Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.20 seconds)Section 21 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Bharat Singh And Anr vs Bhagirathi on 26 August, 1965
There is no merit even in the contention that because these
three statements-Exs. G, G2 and H-had not been put to the
first plaintiff when he was in the witness box or to the
eighth defendant although he had discreetly kept away from
giving evidence, they cannot be used against him. Counsel
drew our attention to s. 145 of the Indian Evidence Act.
There is a cardinal distinction between a party who is the
author of a prior statement and a witness who is examined
and is sought to be discredited by use of his prior
statement. In the former case. an admission by a party is
substantive evidence if it fulfill the requirements of s. 21
of the Evidence Act; in the latter case a prior statement is
used to discredit the credibility of the witness and does
not become substantive evidence. In the former there is no
necessary requirement of the statement containing the
admission having to be put to the party because it is
evidence proprio vigore : in the latter case the Court
cannot be invited to disbelieve a witness on the strength of
a prior contradictory statement unless. it has been put to
him, as required by s. 145 of the Evidence Act. This
distinction has been clearly brought out' in the ruling in
Bharat Singh v. Bhagirathi(1). This Court disposed of a
similar argument with the following observations :
Section 17 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
1