PART III - PRODUCTION AND EFFECT OF EVIDENCE CHAPTER 3 - EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES
Section 106. 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 witnes is asked any question tending to impeach his impartiality and answers it by denying the facts suggested, he may be contradicted.
ILLUSTRATION
(a) 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.
(b) 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.
(c) 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.