Photo of Juvraj Singh

Director in the Dispute Practice at the Noida office of Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, specializes in general civil, corporate and commercial litigation, and arbitrations, under ad hoc and institutional rules, seated in India and abroad. He has for a decade advised several Fortune 500 companies in a range of sectors and also represented them in their disputes such as disputes arising from Joint Venture Agreements; Infrastructure and construction projects related to Power, Oil & Gas etc.; disputes arising  from Shareholders’ Agreements, Share Purchase Agreements, claims for oppression and mismanagement of companies etc., that are frequently multi-jurisdictional. Additionally, he has represented and advised several international clients, on trans-national and multi-jurisdictional matters in the realm of anti- corruption, anti-bribery, anti-money laundering, financial crime, serious fraud investigations, complex cyber-crime issues, corporate governance etc. He can be reached at juvraj.singh@cyrilshroff.com

Explaining the rudimentary principles of proving contradictions in a criminal trial

The craft of cross examination is often tested by the ingenuity of a trial lawyer in impeaching the credibility of a witness by extracting contradictions such that his previous testimony becomes unworthy of belief. The art of cross examination has always been deemed the surest test of truth and a better security than oath[1]. The method lies in introducing and proving an otherwise inadmissible evidence, with a masterful knowledge of the underlying laws of evidence. At a macro level, the broad contours of impeaching the credit of a witness is contemplated under Section 155 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (the “Act”), where under inter alia proving contradictions play a formidable part. Superior courts in India have time and again emphasised on the imperativeness of proving contradictions in consonance with the procedure prescribed under Section 145 the Act. Whilst, in a large measure, Section 145 of the Act is worded to take within its fold the procedure for proving contradictions in both criminal and civil trials by an adverse party, outlined below is an attempt at non-exhaustively analysing the procedure for extracting and proving contradictions in a criminal trial.


Continue Reading Explaining the Rudimentary Principles of Proving Contradictions in a Criminal Trial