Contradiction of Witnesses: Insights from PLD 1995 SC 578
Introduction: Article 140 of the QSO allows parties to challenge a witness’s credibility by introducing evidence that contradicts previous statements. However, the Supreme Court in PLD 1995 SC 578 clarifies the limits of this mechanism.
Article 140 of the QSO
Article 140 of the QSO allows a party to challenge the credibility of a witness by introducing evidence that contradicts the witness’s previous statements. The underlying rationale is that if a witness has made an earlier statement that materially differs from the testimony being given in court, it raises legitimate doubts about the truthfulness or accuracy of the account. Contradicting a witness under Article 140 is, however, a controlled mechanism designed to prevent parties from creating artificial contradictions where none exist, thereby protecting the sanctity of oral evidence.
| Previous Statements (Article 140) | Cross-Examination Admissions |
|---|---|
| Statements made outside the courtroom (to police, affidavits, etc.). | Facts elicited by the defence during the actual trial. |
| Can be used to highlight contradictions. | Cannot be equated with a 'previous statement' for Article 140 purposes. |
Practical Implications for Trials
- Limitation on Reliance: Defence cannot claim a contradiction based solely on trial concessions.
- Material Contradictions: Focus must remain on inconsistencies that bear upon the witness’s reliability.
- Judicial Scrutiny: Courts must ensure the provision is not misused to manufacture false unreliability.
Frequently Asked Questions
Question: Can the defence use a witness's trial admissions as a 'previous statement' to discredit them?
Answer: No. PLD 1995 SC 578 clarifies that facts elicited during cross-examination do not count as 'previous statements' under Article 140.