§ SECTION 152 · BSA 2023 · CHAPTER X — OF EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES

Question not to be asked without reasonable grounds

No smearing at random. A question that injures a witness’s character (of the § 151 kind) ought not to be asked unless the questioner has reasonable grounds for thinking the imputation is well-founded.

How to read Section 152

A character-attacking question in cross-examination must rest on a real basis — instructions, verified information or the witness’s own answers — not on guesswork.

The rule

A § 151-type credit-injuring question ought not to be asked unless there are reasonable grounds to think the imputation is well-founded.

Reasonable grounds

From instructions, verified information, or the witness’s own unsatisfactory answers.

No grounds

A random imputation, on no basis, against a witness of whom nothing is known.

The bare Act

The section in its own words — the rule, and four illustrations.

Section 152 · verbatim

No such question as is referred to in section 151 ought to be asked, unless the person asking it has reasonable grounds for thinking that the imputation which it conveys is well-founded.

Illustrations

(a) An advocate is instructed by another advocate that an important witness is a dacoit. This is a reasonable ground for asking the witness whether he is a dacoit.

(b) An advocate is informed by a person in Court that an important witness is a dacoit. The informant, on being questioned by the advocate, gives satisfactory reasons for his statement. This is a reasonable ground for asking the witness whether he is a dacoit.

(c) A witness, of whom nothing whatever is known, is asked at random whether he is a dacoit. There are here no reasonable grounds for the question.

(d) A witness, of whom nothing whatever is known, being questioned as to his mode of life and means of living, gives unsatisfactory answers. This may be a reasonable ground for asking him if he is a dacoit.

In short: the credit-injuring questions that § 151 leaves to the court’s discretion are not to be flung at a witness on a whim. This section adds a threshold of good faith: such a question ought not to be asked unless the person putting it has reasonable grounds for believing the imputation it conveys is well-founded. It is a restraint on the questioner — a bar on gratuitous smearing. The four illustrations map the line. Reasonable grounds exist where the advocate acts on instructions from another advocate (a), on information from a person in court whose reasons check out on questioning (b), or on the witness’s own unsatisfactory answers about his mode of life (d). They do not exist where a witness of whom nothing is known is asked at random whether he is a criminal (c). Reasonable grounds are not the same as proof — a genuine, checkable basis is enough; but a guess is not.

→ This carries forward IEA 1872 § 149 — character-imputing questions need reasonable grounds.

Glossary

question referred to in section 151

A credit-only question injuring the witness’s character.

ought not to be asked

A restraint on putting the question.

reasonable grounds

A genuine, proper basis for the imputation.

imputation… well-founded

The discreditable suggestion is likely true.

instructions / verified information

Sources that can furnish reasonable grounds.

at random / no basis

A baseless imputation — no reasonable grounds.

The picture

A real basis lets the question in; a random guess keeps it out.

The section, part by part

Tap a part — the picture-story tells it first; the word-by-word text and example follow.

The ruleThe illustrations

the ruleA character attack must rest on a real basis

In one lineA § 151-type character-injuring question ought not to be asked unless the questioner has reasonable grounds to think the imputation is well-founded.

No such question as is referred to in section 151 ought to be asked, unless the person asking it has reasonable grounds for thinking that the imputation which it conveys is well-founded.no character question without a real basis…the restraint is on the questioner — a bar on putting a discreditable suggestion he has no reason to believe.

ExampleCounsel may suggest a witness is a habitual offender only if he has a genuine basis — instructions, or reliable information — not merely to blacken him in the court’s eyes.

✗ Not thisReasonable grounds are not the same as proof. The questioner need not have established the imputation — but he must have a genuine, checkable reason to think it true.

illustrationsThree grounds, one guess — the line drawn

In one lineInstructions (a), a verified informant (b), or the witness’s own unsatisfactory answers (d) are reasonable grounds; a random imputation (c) is not.

(a) An advocate is instructed by another advocate that an important witness is a dacoit. This is a reasonable ground for asking the witness whether he is a dacoit.(a) instructions — a reasonable groundacting on another advocate’s instruction gives a proper basis.

(b) An advocate is informed by a person in Court that an important witness is a dacoit. The informant, on being questioned by the advocate, gives satisfactory reasons for his statement. This is a reasonable ground for asking the witness whether he is a dacoit.(b) verified information — a reasonable groundan informant whose reasons check out supplies a proper basis.

(c) A witness, of whom nothing whatever is known, is asked at random whether he is a dacoit. There are here no reasonable grounds for the question.(c) random — NO reasonable grounda bare guess against a stranger witness has no basis.

(d) A witness, of whom nothing whatever is known, being questioned as to his mode of life and means of living, gives unsatisfactory answers. This may be a reasonable ground for asking him if he is a dacoit.(d) the witness’s own answers — may be a groundunsatisfactory answers about his mode of life can themselves furnish the ground.

ExampleCompare (c) and (d): asking a total stranger ‘are you a dacoit?’ is baseless; but where that witness cannot explain how he lives, his own evasive answers may make the same question legitimate.

✗ Not thisThe source of the ground varies — instruction, information, or the witness’s own answers — but a ground there must be. What is barred is the imputation put on nothing at all.

Connected provisions

§ 151 · back

IEA 1872, § 149

Carried forward — character-imputing questions need reasonable grounds.

BSA 2023 § 152 — Question not to be asked without reasonable grounds