Page |1

Topic: “CORROBORATION AND

CONTRADICTION”

TABLE OF CONTENT

1. ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………3
2. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………..4
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY……………………………………..5
4. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE…………………………………………….5
5. ANALYSIS
 CONTRADICTION …………………………………..…………5.
 CROSS-EXAMINATION AS TO PREVIOUS STATEMENTS IN
WRITING (Section 145).................................................................6
 “EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE TO CONTRADICT ANSWER
TO QUESTIONS TESTING VERACITY”……………………6
6. CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE
 SECTION 156 OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT……………………………7
 SECTION 157 OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT……………………………8
 CONDITIONS FOR ADMITTING STATEMENTS………………………9

7. CORROBORATION/CONTRADICTION OF STATEMENTS OF PERSON WHO

CAN’T FOUND………………………………………………………………………10

8. CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………..11
 Page |2

ABSTRACT
The Evidence Act of 1872 specifies the procedure to be followed in cases involving the
production of relevant oral, documentary, and material evidence, as well as the examination of
witnesses. Legal disputes are resolved based on the evidence in the case. All legal means that
tend to prove or disprove any matter of fact are considered evidence. The evidence rules outlined
in Sections 145, 154, and 157 are critical for practitioners. Contradictions in a witness's
previous written statements are a very powerful weapon in the hands of the opposing party. A
contradiction may be so severe that it destroys the case presented in the examination-in-chief.
For example, If we can see, the evidentiary value of FIR is far greater than that of any other
statements. However, it is a well-established legal principle that FIR cannot be assumed as a
substantive piece of evidence and can only be considered as an important piece of evidence.
However, there are some exceptions where a FIR can be used as a substantive piece of evidence
for the purpose of corroboration and contradiction the informant's information. In this paper, we
will examine the concept of corroboration and contradiction under the Indian Evidence Act
using specific cases and examples.

KEYWORDS: CORROBORATION, CONTRADICTION, EVIDENCE,

 Page |3

INTRODUCTION
The act of speaking anything that is the total opposite of or extremely different in meaning from
something previously expressed is known as contradiction. During cross examination during a
trial, a contradiction occurs when a witness under oath says anything that is contradictory to, or
considerably different in meaning from, the preceding statement recorded.
Contradictions between two witness accounts are critical in determining the outcome of a
criminal prosecution or trial. Direct contradictions and contradictions through omissions are the
two types of contradictions. Contradiction and omission are terms used to describe making
changes or adjustments to a witness's previous and subsequent statements. 1 Naturally, a witness
who is interested in the case may improve his evidence on the incident at issue.

To prevent this, the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 establishes methods for showing
inconsistencies and omissions during a trial. In two steps, the contradictions or omissions can be
proven. The contradiction is first brought to the attention of the court, as required by the Indian
Evidence Act.2 The contradiction is then proven in the second stage by cross-examining the
officer who recorded the statements under Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973.
(CrPC). If the latter is not done, the contradictions or omissions brought to the court's attention
cannot be treated as proven.
Corroborating evidence (or corroboration) is evidence that tends to support a proposition that
has previously been supported by some initial evidence, therefore confirming it. 3 Witness W, for
example, says that she witnessed X drive his car into a green car. Meanwhile, another witness, Y,
testifies that later that day, when he examined X's car, he found green paint on its fender.

1
https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/contradiction-omission-in-cross-examination-10761.asp
2https://vidhisastras.com/contradiction-and-corroboration/

3
 Page |4

Corroborating evidence can also be found in relation to a source, such as what causes an author
to think a specific way based on witness testimony.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The methodology adopted in this project work is based on Doctrinal research. This study relies
on secondary data, which includes primary, secondary, and tertiary legal resources. The
information gathered through a literature review was obtained by searching through, reviewing,
and interpreting research materials obtained from a variety of sources (such as conventions,
legislation, law books, journal articles, and others).

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

The main objective of this paper is to understand the concept of Corroboration and contradiction
under Indian Evidence act with the help of various sections, examples and case laws. We will
also understand what are the relevancy of it.

ANALYSIS

CONTRADICTION

Contradiction occurs when the same witness makes two contradictory statements at different
stages of a proceeding. When a witness contradicts himself in his statements, his previous
statement remains in conflict with his oral testimony in court. Contradictions frequently arise
between the evidence given under oath at trial and the statements recorded by the police during
the investigation under Section 161 of the CrPC.

The provision for dealing with contradiction is set out in Section 145 of the Indian Evidence
Act.4 The section states that a witness may be cross-examined regarding a previous statement
made in writing or reduced to writing in order to contradict his testimony before the court with

4
Section 145 of Indian evidence Act 1872
 Page |5

his previous statement relevant to the matter in dispute, before it is duly proven 5. Such cross
examination would assist the court in determining whether or not the witness is telling the truth.
This section only applies when both statements on the same fact are inconsistent.

In a judicial proceeding, a witness's previous statement can only be used for two purposes:

1. one is to contradict the witness (thus impeaching his credibility), and

2. the other is to corroborate a fact in issue by the prosecution.

A clear contradiction on a material fact can demolish the case presented in the examination-in-
chief. The contradiction demonstrated by the Police Statements is not substantive evidence, but it
would greatly aid in the impeachment of the witness's credibility 6. The Police Statement may be
utilised only for proving contradiction but not for corroboration.

SECTION 153 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 SPEAKS ABOUT,

“EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE TO CONTRADICT ANSWER TO QUESTIONS
TESTING VERACITY”

According to Section 153 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872, "exclusion of evidence to
contradict answer to questions testing veracity" is prohibited 7. This section states that if a
question is asked and the witness answers it in a way that only harms the witness's character, no
evidence can be used to contradict him unless he answers falsely, in which case he will be
charged with making false statements.

There are two exceptions to this rule:

1. if a witness is asked whether or not he has previously been convicted. On the witness's
denial, evidence regarding his previous conviction can be presented.

5
https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/contradiction-omission-in-cross-examination-10761.asp
6
https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/contradiction-omission-in-cross-examination-10761.asp
7
Section 153 of The Indian evidence Act 1872.
 Page |6

2. On witness denial, he may be contradicted. It means that if a party has reasonable

grounds to believe that the witness is biassed, they may contradict him and attempt to
provide evidence.8

The purpose of this section is to keep trials from going on for too long. If every answer must be
given on every fact asked under Section 146 and it is made the subject of a new investigation, a
trial may never end. After all, these issues are secondary to what is stated in the exceptions.

For example, Kamal Taneja claims to have seen Arvind in Delhi on a specific date; Kamal is
asked whether he was in Haryana on that specific date; Kamal denies it. Evidence has been
presented to show that Kamal was in Haryana. The evidence is admissible, not because it
contradicts Kamal on the fact that affects his credit, but because it contradicts the alleged fact
that he saw Arvind in Delhi on the same date.

CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE

According to Black law’s dictionary, to corroborate means to strengthen, to make a statement or

testimony more credible by confirming facts or evidence. Corroborative evidence, in a way, is a
supplementary testimony to the already given evidence and tending to strengthen or confirm;
additional evidence of a different character to the same point. Corroborative evidence is the
evidence used to make substantive evidence more concrete. 9 The Section 156 and 157 of the
Indian Evidence Act deals with corroboration of evidence

According to Section 156 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872, "questions tending to corroborate
evidence of relevant fact are admissible." This section allows for the admission of evidence
given for the purpose of testing the truthfulness of the witness rather than proving a specific fact.
This section states that when a witness's testimony needs to be corroborated, he may be
questioned (apart from the main event) about any other circumstances he observed at or near the

8
https://lawpage.in/evidence_law/examination-witnesses#no_evidence_to_contradict_answer_testing_veracity
9
https://vidhisastras.com/contradiction-and-corroboration/
 Page |7

time or place where the main fact occurred, if the court believes that such circumstances, if
proven, would corroborate the witness's testimony about the relevant fact to which he testifies.

ILLUSTRATION

A, an accomplice, describes a robbery in which he participated. He describes a number of

incidents unrelated to the robbery that occurred on his way to and from the scene. Independent
evidence of these facts may be presented to corroborate his testimony regarding the robbery
itself.

According to Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act, a former statement made by a witness
before any authority competent to investigate the case at or about the time the fact occurred must
be proven in order to corroborate any later testimony (relating to the same fact or event) made by
the witness in court. When the former statement is consistent with the later testimony, it is
admitted as corroborative evidence.
CONDITIONS FOR ADMITTING STATEMENTS

The previous statement made under either of the following two conditions may be admitted for
corroboration under this section:
1. The statement must have been made at or about the time when the fact took place; or
2. It must have been before any authority legally competent to investigate the fact.

1. At or about the time: - This Section provides an exception to the general rule of
excluding indirect evidence, and in order to bring a statement within the exception, the
prosecution is required to abolish by clear evidence the proximity of time between taking
position on the fact and making the statement. There is no such thing as a hard and fast
rule.10 The main question is whether the statement was made as soon as it was reasonably
possible in the circumstances of the case, and before there was an opportunity to tutor
someone or intermixture. The phrase "at about the time" implies that the statement must
10
https://vidhisastras.com/contradiction-and-corroboration/
 Page |8

be made immediately or soon after when a reasonable opportunity to make it presents

itself.

2. Before any authority legally competent to investigate the fact - If the former statement
was not made at or about the time when fact took place, it must be shown to have been
made before any authority legally competent to investigate the fact. If the former
statement was not made at or about the time the occurrence took place nor before any
legally competent authority to investigate the fact would not be admissible.

It may be noted that if the statement is made to an investigating authority ie under the police, it
would be usable even if it was made after gap of time viz. few days. Statements before an
investigating officer arc not evidence (e.g. FIR) but can be used for corroboration or
contradiction. First Information Report (FIS) is not a significant piece of evidence. The First
Information Report (FIR) can be used to corroborate the testimony of the maker of it or to
contradict him under Section 145

CASE LAW - THE CORROBORATION ISSUE

In Sarwan Singh v. the State of Punjab, the Supreme Court established the law governing the
assessment and appreciation of accomplice evidence, as well as various principles and norms
governing the corroboration of accomplice evidence.11 The Court observed that the issue of the
credibility of evidence provided by an approver has been raised numerous times before it.
However, it is not necessary to go into detail about the exact legal position in this case. In
addition, the Court stated that under the Indian Evidence Act, an accomplice is a competent
witness.

11
https://lawpage.in/evidence_law/corroboration
 Page |9

CORROBORATION/CONTRADICTION OF STATEMENTS
OF PERSON WHO CAN’T FOUND
Section 158 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 addresses "what matters may be proved in
connection with a proved statement relevant under Section 32 or 33." This section states that
when the statement of a person who cannot be found or is dead is relevant under Section 32 or 33
and has been proven (e.g., a dying declaration), all matters that confirm or contradict the
statement may be proven.12 Evidence can also be given of any fact that might confirm or impeach
the credibility of the person who made the statement to the same extent as if that person had
appeared as a witness and denied the truth of the matter suggested on cross-examination.

Thus, under this section, a person whose statement has been used as evidence under Section 32
or 33 is in the same category as a witness who has been called to testify in court for the purpose
of contradicting his statement by a previous statement made by him. Such statements have no
sanctity simply because the person is deceased or cannot be examined as a witness. His
credibility can be questioned or confirmed in the same way that a living witness can.

12
https://lawpage.in/evidence_law/corroboration
 P a g e | 10

CONCLUSION

The need of proving contradiction and corroboration can be symbolised in the given passage. It
is true that proving contradiction and corroboration might influence the defense's faith in the
case. The proof of the same can aid an innocent accused individual who has been dragged into a
false case by a twisted and fabricated case. The proof of contradiction is critical in destroying the
prosecution's credibility. While the Judge evaluates the case's faith by appreciating the evidence
he has recorded throughout the trial, proven contradictions and corroboration that can affect the
prosecution's case play a critical part. Cross-examination is an art form, and proving
contradiction adds to the difficulty.