​Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 –
Questions Intended to Insult or Annoy (Section 155)

Case Scenario (Beginning as Required)During a criminal trial involving the kidnapping and murder of a child, a woman witness is subjected to humiliating and scandalous questions about her personal life, even though such matters have no connection with the issues before the court. The defence argues that such questions are part of cross-examination. The judge must decide whether these questions should be allowed or stopped.
This situation is governed by Section 155 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

Purpose of Section 155Section 155 is designed to protect witnesses from harassment, humiliation, and unnecessary embarrassment during judicial proceedings. It recognizes that while cross-examination is a powerful tool to test truth, it must not be misused to insult, annoy, or intimidate witnesses.

Statutory Provision (Explained Simply)Section 155 provides that:
The Court shall forbid any question which appears to it:

• To be intended to insult or annoy, or
• Which, though otherwise proper, appears to the Court needlessly offensive in form.

Thus, even a relevant question may be disallowed if its form is offensive and unnecessary.

Relationship Between Sections 154 and 155

• Section 154 empowers the court to forbid:
  • Indecent or scandalous questions (unless they relate to facts in issue)
• Section 155 empowers the court to forbid:
  • Questions intended to insult or annoy
  • Questions that are unnecessarily offensive in form

Together, these sections give the trial judge broad control over courtroom questioning.

Scope of Section 155What the Court Must Forbid

• Questions asked:
  • With the intention to insult or humiliate
  • To annoy or harass a witness
  • Using abusive, degrading, or suggestive language

What the Court May Allow

• Even indecent or scandalous questions:
  • If they directly relate to a fact in issue
  • And are necessary for a fair decision

Judicial Discretion

• If such questions:
  • Only indirectly relate to the case, or
  • Are framed offensively without necessity

👉 The court has discretion to forbid them.

Duty of the Trial Judge

• The judge must:
  • Prevent introduction of scandalous or offensive material into the record
  • Ensure dignity and fairness in proceedings
  • Intervene promptly when questioning crosses permissible limits

Where a question:

• Is intended to insult or annoy, or
• Is unnecessarily offensive,

👉 Judicial intervention is mandatory.

Illustrative Case LawState of Uttar Pradesh v. Raghubir Singh

• Indecent and scandalous questions were put to a woman witness
• Her child had been kidnapped and murdered
• Questions related to paternity, which was not in issue

Held:

• Allowing such questions was improper
• The Supreme Court emphasized the duty of courts to protect witnesses, especially vulnerable ones

Why Such Questions Are Restricted

• To preserve:
  • Dignity of witnesses
  • Decorum of judicial proceedings
• To prevent:
  • Secondary victimisation
  • Intimidation and coercion
• To ensure:
  • Evidence is tested fairly, not abusively

Critical AnalysisStrengths

1. Protects witnesses from harassment
2. Encourages truthful testimony without fear
3. Maintains courtroom dignity
4. Prevents abuse of cross-examination
5. Upholds constitutional values of fairness

Limitations

1. Requires strong judicial vigilance
2. Risk of inconsistent application
3. Balancing relevance and sensitivity can be challenging

10 Illustrative Case Scenarios

1. Offensive questioning of sexual assault survivor barred
2. Personal insults during cross-examination stopped
3. Abusive tone disallowed though question relevant
4. Scandalous questions unrelated to facts excluded
5. Properly framed relevant questions allowed
6. Witness harassed – court intervenes
7. Defence attempts intimidation – prevented
8. Judge rephrases offensive question
9. Vulnerable witness protected
10. Fair trial preserved

ConclusionSection 155 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 ensures that cross-examination remains a tool for truth, not a weapon for humiliation. By mandating courts to forbid questions intended to insult or annoy or those framed in a needlessly offensive manner, the provision safeguards the dignity of witnesses and the integrity of judicial proceedings.
The decision in State of U.P. v. Raghubir Singh underscores the importance of judicial sensitivity, especially when dealing with vulnerable witnesses. Ultimately, Section 155 reflects the principle that justice must be pursued with humanity, fairness, and respect.