send mail to support@abhimanu.com mentioning your email id and mobileno registered with us! if details not recieved
Resend Opt after 60 Sec.
By Loging in you agree to Terms of Services and Privacy Policy
Claim your free MCQ
Please specify
Sorry for the inconvenience but we’re performing some maintenance at the moment. Website can be slow during this phase..
Please verify your mobile number
Login not allowed, Please logout from existing browser
Please update your name
Subscribe to Notifications
Stay updated with the latest Current affairs and other important updates regarding video Lectures, Test Schedules, live sessions etc..
Your Free user account at abhipedia has been created.
Remember, success is a journey, not a destination. Stay motivated and keep moving forward!
Refer & Earn
Enquire Now
My Abhipedia Earning
Kindly Login to view your earning
Support
Type your modal answer and submitt for approval
The principle underlying section 153 of the Evidence Act, is to limit the right to call evidence to contradict witness on collateral questions and exclude all evidence of the facts which are incapable of affording any reasonable presumptions or inference as to the principal matter in dispute. A party may not, in general, impeach the credit of his opponent’s witnesses by calling witnesses to contradict him on irrelevant matters. The section must be strictly construed and narrowly interpreted. The rule is founded on the following reason/reasons that –
A witness cannot be expected to come prepared to defend, by independent proof, all the actions of his life.
To admit contradicting evidence on such points would lead to confusion by raising an almost endless series of collateral issues.
Either (a) or (b)
Both (a) and (b)
- Section 153 of the Evidence Act seeks to prevent parties from introducing evidence to contradict a witness on collateral, irrelevant matters.
- The main aim is to keep the trial focused on real issues and not to waste time on side matters.
-
- Option 1: A witness cannot possibly defend with proof every detail of their life, so it is unfair to expect them to.
- Option 2: Allowing contradictions on irrelevant points can confuse the case by leading to endless side issues.
- Option 3: States that either (a) or (b) alone is the reason, which is too narrow since both apply.
- Option 4: Both (a) and (b) are valid reasons—the rule is founded on both fairness to the witness and practical case management.
- Correct Answer: Option 4 (Both (a) and (b))
By: santosh ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources
New Courses