did not offer the complainant a cup of tea; that the complainant did not fall unconscious after taking the tea; and that the complainant was not brought to A.P. Jain Hospital by PW4, Avtar Singh after the complainant was found lying unconscious on the roadside. Similarly, PW4, Avtar Singh and PW1, Dr. I.C. Taneja have not been confronted with a suggestion that the complainant was not brought to the hospital by PW4, Avtar Singh.�It is trite legal proposition that if a party wishes to raise any doubt as regards the correctness of the statement of a witness, the said witness must be given an opportunity to explain his statement by drawing his attention to that part of it, which has been objected to by the other party, as being untrue. Without this, it is not possible to impeach his credibility. Such a law has been advanced in view of the statutory provisions enshrined in Section 138 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which enable the opposite party to cross%examine a witness as regards information tendered in evidence by him during his initial examination in chief, and the scope of this provision stands enlarged by Section 146 of the Evidence Act, which permits a witness to be questioned, inter%alia, in order to test his veracity. Thereafter, the unchallenged part of his evidence is to be relied upon, for the reason that it is impossible for the witness to explain or elaborate upon any doubts as regards the same, in the absence of questions put to him with respect to the circumstances which indicate that the version of events provided by him, is not fit to be believed, and the witness himself, is unworthy of credit. Thus, if a party intends to impeach a witness, he must provide
