Section 147: When Witness to Be Compelled to Answer

Overview

Section 147 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Bill, 2023, deals with a fundamental rule in trials: a witness generally *must* answer questions asked during cross-examination, even if answering truthfully might expose them to criminal charges. However, this isn’t absolute; the law provides safeguards to protect witnesses from self-incrimination. It balances the need for a full and fair inquiry with the rights of the witness.

Key Principles / Ingredients

• Type of Evidence: This section primarily concerns oral evidence given by a witness during examination (specifically, cross-examination). It doesn’t directly address documentary or electronic evidence, though the answers given *about* such evidence would fall under this section.
• Conditions for Admissibility/Relevancy: The question must be lawful – meaning it’s relevant to the case and not prohibited by law (e.g., not asking about irrelevant personal matters). The answer, even if incriminating, is generally admissible as evidence. Relevancy is key; the question must have a bearing on the facts in issue.
• Burden of Proof Implications: This section doesn’t *shift* the burden of proof. The prosecution still bears the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, a witness’s compelled testimony can contribute to the evidence used to meet that burden. A refusal to answer, if permitted, might invite an adverse inference.

How Courts Use this Provision

Judges apply Section 147 when a witness hesitates or refuses to answer a question during cross-examination. The court will first determine if the question is lawful and relevant. If so, the judge will typically direct the witness to answer, explaining that they are legally obligated to do so. The judge will also ensure the witness understands their right to seek legal advice and potentially claim privilege (if applicable – see 'Important Provisos/Explanations' below).

Illustrations and Examples

• Example 1 – Simple Situation: In a theft case, the accused’s friend is a witness. The lawyer asks, “Did you help the accused hide the stolen goods?” If the witness knows the answer, they must answer truthfully, even if admitting help could lead to charges against them as an accomplice.
• Example 2 – More Complex Situation: In a murder trial, a witness is asked, “Were you with the accused on the night of the murder?” The witness fears that admitting they were present might implicate them in the crime. The court will likely compel the answer, but the witness can then seek legal advice and potentially claim privilege against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.

Important Provisos / Explanations

Section 147 doesn’t override constitutional protections. A witness retains the right against self-incrimination guaranteed by Article 20(3) of the Constitution. They can refuse to answer if the answer would expose them to a criminal charge. The court will then decide if the refusal is justified. There are no specific illustrations attached to this section in the Bill.

Difference from Old Evidence Act (if applicable)

The Bhartiya Sakshya Bill, 2023, largely retains the core principle of Section 155 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. However, the new Bill aims for greater clarity and conciseness in language. The Bill also emphasizes the importance of lawful questions and the witness’s understanding of their rights.

Key Takeaways

• Witnesses generally *must* answer lawful questions in cross-examination.
• Answering truthfully doesn’t automatically protect a witness from prosecution.
• The right against self-incrimination (Article 20(3)) still applies.
• The court decides if a question is lawful and relevant.
• Refusal to answer a lawful question can have consequences.