Evidence Act 1950 s 153
s 153 Exclusion of evidence to contradict answers to questions testing veracity
When a witness has been asked and has answered any question which is relevant to the inquiry only so far as it tends to shake his credit by injuring his character, no evidence shall be given to contradict him; but if he answers falsely he may afterwards be charged with giving false evidence.
Exception 1—If a witness is asked whether he has been previously convicted of any crime and denies it, evidence may be given of his previous conviction.
Exception 2—If a witness is asked any question tending to impeach his impartiality and answers it by denying the facts suggested, he may be contradicted.
ILLUSTRATIONS
(a) A claim against an underwriter is resisted on the ground of fraud.
The claimant is asked whether in a former transaction he had not made a fraudulent claim. He denies it.
Evidence is offered to show that he did make such a claim.
The evidence is inadmissible.
(b) A witness is asked whether he was not dismissed from a situation for dishonesty. He denies it.
Evidence is offered to show that he was dismissed for dishonesty.
The evidence is not admissible.
(c) A affirms that on a certain day he saw B at Malacca.
A is asked whether he himself was not on that day at Penang. He denies it.
Evidence is offered to show that A was on that day at Penang.
The evidence is admissible, not as contradicting A on a fact which affects his credit, but as contradicting the alleged fact that B was seen on the day in question in Malacca.
(d) A is tried for a rape on B. B is asked in cross-examination whether she has not had illicit intercourse with C and D. She denies it. Evidence is offered to show that she has had such intercourse with C and D. The evidence is not admissible.
In each of the cases in illustrations (c) and (d) the witness might, if the denial was false, be charged with giving false evidence.
(e) A is asked whether he has not said that he would be revenged on B, against whom he gives evidence. He denies it.
He may be contradicted on the ground that the question tends to impeach his impartiality.
Malay text (authoritative)
Penyingkiran keterangan untuk menyangkal jawapan kepada soalan yang menguji kebenaran
Apabila seseorang saksi telah ditanya dan telah menjawab apa-apa soalan yang berkaitan dengan siasatan itu hanya setakat yang ia cenderung melemahkan kebolehpercayaannya dengan mencela wataknya, tiada keterangan boleh diberikan untuk menyangkalnya; tetapi jika dia memberikan jawapan palsu, dia boleh kemudiannya dipertuduh kerana memberikan keterangan palsu.
Kecualian 1—Jika seorang saksi ditanya sama ada dia dahulunya telah disabitkan atas apa-apa jenayah dan dia menafikannya, keterangan boleh diberikan mengenai sabitannya yang dahulu itu.
Kecualian 2—Jika seorang saksi ditanya apa-apa soalan yang cenderung mencabar kesaksamaannya dan dia menjawab dengan menafikan fakta yang disarankan itu, dia boleh disangkal.
(a) Suatu tuntutan terhadap seorang pengunderait ditentang atas alasan fraud.
Pihak menuntut ditanya sama ada dalam transaksi dahulu dia pernah membuat suatu tuntutan secara fraud. Dia menafikannya.
Keterangan diberikan bagi menunjukkan bahawa dia pernah membuat tuntutan sedemikian.
Keterangan itu tidak boleh diterima.
(b) Seorang saksi ditanya sama ada dia pernah dibuang kerja kerana kecurangan. Dia menafikannya.
Keterangan diberikan untuk menunjukkan bahawa dia pernah dibuang kerja kerana kecurangan.
Keterangan itu tidak boleh diterima.
(c) A menegaskan bahawa pada suatu hari tertentu dia telah melihat B di Melaka.
A ditanya sama ada dia tidak berada di Pulau Pinang pada hari itu. Dia menafikannya.
Keterangan diberikan untuk menunjukkan bahawa A berada di Pulau Pinang pada hari itu.
Keterangan itu boleh diterima, bukan untuk menyangkal A atas suatu fakta yang menyentuh kebolehpercayaannya, tetapi untuk menyangkal fakta yang dikatakan bahawa B telah dilihat di Melaka pada hari yang berkenaan itu.
(d) A dibicarakan kerana merogol B. B ditanya dalam pemeriksaan balas sama ada dia telah melakukan persetubuhan haram dengan C dan D. Dia menafikannya. Keterangan diberikan untuk menunjukkan bahawa dia telah melakukan persetubuhan haram dengan C dan D. Keterangan itu tidak boleh diterima.
Dalam tiap-tiap hal dalam misalan (c) dan (d) saksi itu boleh, jika penafiannya itu palsu, dipertuduh kerana memberikan keterangan palsu.
(e) A ditanya sama ada dia pernah berkata bahawa dia akan membalas dendam terhadap B yang terhadapnya dia memberikan keterangan. Dia menafikannya.
Dia boleh disangkal atas alasan bahawa soalan itu cenderung mencabar kesaksamaannya.
Read this section in the full act → · Open Chapter X →
Find Act 56 on lom.agc.gov.my ↗
Text as at 1 May 2017 (LOM reprint); amendments made after that date may not be incorporated.
Source: Laws of Malaysia, Attorney General's Chambers of Malaysia (lom.agc.gov.my). Not a copy of the Gazette printed by the Government Printer (Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967, s 61).
