His own words, not someone else's: a key evidence rule

A witness changes their story in court. The lawyer pulls out another witness's old statement to prove they're lying. The judge stops him.

The lawyer freezes, hand still on the document — a faint tremor in his fingers as he registers the objection. He had been certain this would work. Witness A said one thing in court, but Witness B had said something different earlier. Surely the contradiction would expose the lie? The judge pushes his glasses up, waiting. The courtroom falls into a thick silence, broken only by the rustle of paper as the lawyer slowly puts the wrong statement down. He has just learned, in the worst possible moment, that the rules of evidence are not what he thought they were.

That moment — a courtroom where a lawyer reaches for the wrong document, believing any contradiction will do — is precisely what the Supreme Court had to untangle in Chaudhari Ramjibhai Narasangbhai v. State of Gujarat. The question was deceptively simple: whose statements could be used to challenge a witness's testimony?

When the witness changed course

The underlying matter required clarity on this very point. A witness took the stand and gave a version of events that differed from a statement made during an earlier proceeding. The party seeking to challenge the witness wanted to confront them with this inconsistency.

But here is where the critical mistake emerged. Instead of pulling out the witness's own prior statement — the one the witness had signed or made under oath — the lawyer reached for the statement of another witness. The logic seemed straightforward: if one person said X earlier, and another now says Y in court, surely the inconsistency between them proves someone is lying?

The trial court allowed it. The witness was confronted with another person's words. The contradiction stood. The case moved forward. The appellant, Chaudhari Ramjibhai Narasangbhai, found himself in a trial for a criminal offence in a Gujarat sessions court, where this very error — the use of one witness's statement to contradict another — became the central legal question on appeal.

The question that reached the higher court

When the matter reached the Supreme Court, the core issue crystallised: under Section 145 of the Evidence Act (the provision that governs how a witness can be contradicted by a prior statement), whose statement counts?

One side argued that any inconsistency between witnesses was fair game — if two people gave different accounts, surely the court could use one to discredit the other. They pointed to the trial court's ruling, which had allowed the contradiction to stand, and argued that the practice was long-established in the sessions court. The other side countered that the law was narrower: you can only contradict a witness using their own prior statement, not someone else's. Using another witness's statement to impeach a witness, they said, was like using a neighbour's diary to prove you were lying about what you had for breakfast.

The procedural posture of the case was critical. The appeal had arisen from a criminal trial where the prosecution's case depended heavily on witness testimony. The defence, seeking to undermine that testimony, had attempted to use the statement of one witness to contradict another. When the trial court permitted this, the error was carried through the proceedings, and the appellant challenged it directly before the Supreme Court.

The lower court's reasoning

The trial court had taken a broad view of Section 145. In its reasoning, any prior statement — regardless of who made it — could be used to challenge a witness's credibility if it revealed an inconsistency in the narrative. The court reasoned that the purpose of cross-examination was to test the truthfulness of a witness, and if another person's statement showed that the witness's version was at odds with the record, that was relevant.

But the Supreme Court saw the matter differently. The lower court's approach, while practical, had ignored the statutory text. Section 145 did not say "any prior statement." It said "previous statements made by them" — meaning the witness being cross-examined. The trial court had read the provision too loosely, and the Supreme Court was now called upon to correct that reading.

Why the judge stopped the lawyer

The court examined Section 145 closely. The provision states, in essence, that a witness may be cross-examined as to previous statements made by them in writing or reduced to writing, without the writing being shown to them. But the key phrase, the court noted, was "previous statements made by them." Not by someone else. Not by a co-witness. Not by a police officer who recorded a different version.

The court observed that Section 145 applies only in cases where the same person makes two contradictory statements — either in different proceedings or in two different stages of the same proceeding. If the maker of a statement is sought to be contradicted, their attention must be drawn to their own previous statement under Section 145. A witness cannot be confronted with the statement of another witness and asked to explain why that other person said something different.

The court's own words, drawn from its reasoning, made the principle unmistakable: "Section 145 of the Evidence Act applies only in cases where the same person makes two contradictory statements either in different proceedings or in two different stages of a proceeding." The phrase "the same person" — those three words — carried the entire weight of the judgment. It was not a suggestion. It was a boundary.

The logic is straightforward: a witness can only answer for what they themselves said. Asking them to explain someone else's words is not cross-examination — it is speculation. The witness might have no idea why the other person said what they did. They might not even know the other person. Using another's statement to contradict them is not just procedurally wrong; it is fundamentally unfair.

The court further clarified the distinction between different stages of a proceeding. A witness might make a statement during investigation, then a different statement during trial. That was a proper subject for contradiction under Section 145. But a statement made by a different witness at any stage — investigation, committal, or trial — could not be used to contradict the witness on the stand. The identity of the maker was everything.

The strict requirement that protects every witness

The court held, with clarity, that a witness can only be contradicted in terms of Section 145 by their own previous statement, and not with the statement of any other witness. The strict requirement that contradiction must stem from the witness's own prior statement highlights the vulnerability that arises when a witness's testimony deviates from their documented history.

This is not a technicality. It is a protection. Imagine a trial where five witnesses testify. If the lawyer could use one witness's statement to contradict another, then that witness would be forced to defend words they never spoke, documents they never signed, and versions of events they never witnessed. The cross-examination would become a free-for-all, where any inconsistency between any two people could be used to destroy credibility — regardless of whether the witness being attacked had anything to do with the other person's statement.

The court's reasoning closed that door firmly. The only statement that can be used to contradict a witness is the witness's own prior statement. Nothing else. The judgment in Chaudhari Ramjibhai Narasangbhai v. State of Gujarat thus established a clear rule: the trial court had erred in allowing the contradiction, and the Supreme Court corrected that error by reaffirming the narrow, text-bound reading of Section 145.

The impact of this ruling extends beyond the specific facts of the case. Every sessions court in Gujarat, and every trial court across the country, must now ensure that when a witness is confronted with a prior statement, that statement belongs to the witness and no one else. The judgment does not leave room for judicial discretion on this point — the statutory language is unambiguous.

What this means for every courtroom

For lawyers, the lesson is practical and immediate. Before you stand to cross-examine a witness, check whose statement you are holding. If it is the witness's own prior statement — a police statement, a deposition, an affidavit — you are on solid ground. Draw their attention to the inconsistency, and let them explain. But if the document in your hand belongs to someone else, put it down. It cannot be used to contradict this witness.

For judges, the case is a reminder to police the boundaries of cross-examination. A lawyer reaching for another witness's statement should be stopped at the threshold. The witness on the stand can only answer for themselves. The trial court in this case had allowed the error to pass, and it took the Supreme Court to set the record straight.

THE PLAY: Before you confront a witness with a contradiction, confirm the statement in your hand was made by that witness — no one else's words can be used to impeach them.

The court ended where it began: with a witness, a statement, and the simple rule that a person can only be held to their own words.