Vol. 12 · pages 671–675

650 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES person legally complain to investigate the fact, then to be admissible, must have been made at or about the time when the fact took place. This condition does not apply to a previous statement made before a person having authority to inquire. 25 Mad. 210. Illus. (i) A statement by a girl, alleging that she was raped made immediately after the rape, is admissible. (ii) The dying declaration of a man, who chances to live, is admissible as a corroborative piece of evidence. (iii) The first information given to the police is admissible as corroborative evidence of the testimony of the informant. (iv) The Panchnama is admissible as a corroborative. Two points must be urged by way of caution. (1) The use of statements made to the police in the course of investigation under Section 162, Criminal Procedure Code. These are also previous statements made before a person who is authorised to investigate. Can they be used for the purposes of corroboration ? At one time it was held that they could be so used. 36 Cal. 281. 35 Mad. 397. 39 Bom. 58. The Amendment to Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code excludes both the written record and viva voce statement made to the Police. Though previous statements, they cannot be used as a corroboration. (2) The distinction between corroborative evidence and substantive evidence is important, because, on this depends the use of corroborative evidence. Corroborative evidence is not substantive evidence. Illus. In a trial of a prisoner, the depositions of witnesses given in a previous trial of other persons charged with having been

651LAW OF EVIDENCE engaged in the same offence, were used against him. The witnesses instead of being examined in the ordinary way, were re-sworn and said “I gave evidence before in this Court and that evidence is true”. Held that this evidence was inadmissible. It was only corroborative evidence and could be used only when substantive Evidence is given. If substantive Evidence is not given, then corroborative evidence cannot be given. 12 W. R. Cr. 3. Similarly—If a panch does not identify the accused, the Panchanama of identification as corroborative evidence could be inadmissible. In this connection there arises the question of giving corroborative evidence of a person who cannot be called to give substantive evidence by reason of the fact that the witness is dead or who cannot be found or who has become incapable of giving evidence or whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense, which under the circumstances the Court thinks unreasonable. Section 158 permits corroborative evidence being given although no substantive evidence is tendered. This is an exception to the general rule. That exception applies only if the witness cannot be procured. This is an exception created by Statute. Another exception created by Statute is contained in Section 288 of the Criminal Procedure Code. By that Section, evidence before the committing Magistrate is treated as evidence before the Sessions Court for all purposes i.e. substantive Evidence of all facts deposed therein. § 3/2 § Rules regarding the contradiction of a witness 1. This is a matter which must necessarily be governed by two considerations : (i) The object of inquiry by the Court is to get at the truth and therefore contradiction must be permitted. (ii) If contradiction is permitted, the inquiry will be endless and therefore there must be some limit on the process of contradiction.

652 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES 2. In what cases can a witness be contradicted ? The Section which deals with the contradiction of a witness is Section 153. For the purposes of contradiction, the Section divides the answers of the witness into two classes (1) Answers to questions relating to relevant facts and (2) Answers to questions relating to the credit of a witness. 3. Are the answers of a witness to questions relating credit liable to contradiction ? The answer given in Section 153 is positive to the effect that such answers shall not be contradicted. There are only two exceptions to the rule : (i) If previous conviction is denied, you can contradict it by evidence. (ii) If the witness denies partiality he may be contradicted. In this connection, it must be borne in mind that under the provisions of Section 155, the answers of a witness giving reasons in X-Examination for his belief in the untrustworthiness of another witness are not liable to be contradicted. In all these cases, where the answers of a witness to questions relating to credit are not liable to contradiction, the law provides that if their answers are false they may afterwards be charged with giving false evidence. 4. Are answers of a witness to questions on relevant facts liable to contradiction ? (1) Section 153 is negative in character and merely states cases in which contradiction is not allowed. It does not state in what cases contradiction will be allowed. (2) It does not include answers to relevant questions in its prohibition. By implication it seems to permit contradiction of such answers. (3) There is illustration (c) to Section 153 which shows that the legislature intended to permit contradiction of such answers. 5. Section 153, therefore, lays down the rule that you can contradict answers to relevant questions. But you cannot contradict answers to questions on credit.

653LAW OF EVIDENCE § Contradiction on relevant facts 1. The next question is; Is such contradiction permitted to the party who called the witness or Is it permitted to the adverse party only ? 2. That, a party may contradict the answers given by the witness called on behalf of the adverse party, is beyond question and is always permissible. The defence witnesses are thereto contradict. But it does not seem to be quite so obvious in the other case. A witness is called on behalf of a party. In answer to a question on a relevant fact, he gives a particular answer which the party who called him feels is untrue. Can the party, who called him, call another witness to contradict him ? 3. The answer is that he can. The law seems to make difference between discrediting his own witness by attacking his general character and showing that in a particular respect his testimony is incorrrect. § Manner of Examination of a Witness 1. Manner of Examination means the manner of interrogating the witness, i.e. the manner of putting questions. 2. This matter is left not to the discretion of the party interrogating the witness, but is regulated by law. 3. From the standpoint of the manner of putting questions, questions are either leading questions or not leading questions. 4. A leading question is generally said to be a question which can be answered by a mere yes or no. Although, all such questions undoubtedly come within the rule, the character of leading question is not limited to them. The Evidence Act defines a leading question as one, which suggests a particular answer, which the questioner expects to have from the witness. ? Illus. On a charge for murder by stabbing, to ask a witness ‘Did you see the accused covered with blood and with a knife in coming away from the corpse ?’ is a leading question.

654 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES 5. A distinction must be made between two sorts of leading questions, (i) A leading question which suggests the answer. (ii) A leading question which directs the attention of the witness to the subject respecting which he is questioned. As an illustration of the second sort of leading question, take the following: A was sued for defamation by B for having said in a conversation to C that B was in bankrupt circumstances and that his name would appear in the London Gazette among bankrupts. Question was asked to the witness. “Was anything said about the Gazette ? ” This is not a leading question in the sense of a question which suggests an answer. It is a leading question which directs the attention of the witness to the subject about which he is being questioned. The manner of interrogation in Examination-in-Chief varies from the manner of investigation in Cross-examination. In Cross-examination, a witness may be interrogated in the form of leading questions. But leading questions must not be asked in Examination-in-Chief, if objected to by the opposite party. In Examination-in-Chief, the witness must be asked merely such question as “What did you see ?” “What did you hear ?” “What happened next ?” Reasons for the Rule (1) A witness has a bias in favour of the party calling him and hostile to the opponent. He is, therefore, likely to agree to the answers suggested to him by the pleader of the party. (2) That the party calling a witness has an advantage over his adversary, in knowing before hand what the witness will prove, or at least expected to prove ; and that, consequently, if he were allowed to lead, he might interrogate him in such a manner as to extract only so much of the knowledge of the witness as