​Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 –
Questions Lawful in Cross-Examination (Section 149)
with Reference to When Witness Is to Be Compelled to Answer (Section 150)

Case Scenario
In a criminal trial, a prosecution witness gives evidence against the accused. During cross-examination, the defence counsel asks questions about the witness’s truthfulness, his relationship with the accused, and certain aspects of his past conduct. The witness objects, stating that the answers may incriminate him or expose him to social disgrace. The court must decide which questions are legally permissible and whether the witness can refuse to answer them.
These issues are governed by Sections 149 and 150 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

Purpose of Section 149
Section 149 defines the wide scope of lawful cross-examination. It recognises that cross-examination is the most powerful tool for:

• Testing the credibility of witnesses
• Exposing falsehood, bias, or exaggeration
• Assisting the court in arriving at the truth

The provision allows questions beyond mere facts in issue, subject to later safeguards.

Section 149 – Statutory Rule 
When a witness is cross-examined, he may be asked, in addition to questions on relevant facts, any questions which tend:
(a) To Test His Veracity

• Questions intended to check whether the witness is truthful
• Includes testing consistency, accuracy, and reliability

(b) To Discover Who He Is and His Position in Life

• Questions relating to:
  • Identity
  • Occupation
  • Social or professional position
  • Relationship with parties to the case

Purpose:

• To expose possible bias, interest, or motive.

(c) To Shake His Credit by Injuring His Character

• Questions aimed at discrediting the witness
• Even if the answers:
  • Tend to incriminate him, or
  • Expose him to penalty or forfeiture

👉 Fear of self-incrimination is not a valid excuse at this stage.

Important Proviso – Protection of Victims in Sexual Offence Cases
In prosecutions under Sections 64 to 71 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, or attempts thereof, where consent is in issue:

• It is not permissible to:
  • Adduce evidence, or
  • Ask questions in cross-examination

regarding:

• The general immoral character, or
• Previous sexual experience

of the victim, for proving consent or quality of consent.
This proviso ensures:

• Dignity of victims
• Protection against character assassination

Scope of Section 149
Section 149 extends the scope of cross-examination far beyond Section 143, which restricts questioning to relevant facts.
Under Section 149, a witness may be questioned to:

• Test truthfulness
• Reveal identity and social position
• Shake credibility by attacking character

This broad power is not absolute and is regulated by Sections 150–155.

Illustrative Judicial Principle 
Ganga Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh

• Defence argued that the prosecutrix was unreliable due to omissions in her testimony
• No questions were put to her during cross-examination regarding those omissions

Held:

• If the defence intended to challenge her credibility, it was mandatory to ask such questions during cross-examination
• Failure to do so bars later reliance on those omissions

👉 This highlights the importance of proper and timely cross-examination under Section 149.

Safeguards Against Abuse of Cross-ExaminationSections 150 to 155 act as checks on misuse:

• Section 150 – When witness must be compelled to answer
• Section 151 – Court’s discretion when question affects only credit
• Section 152 – Questions not to be asked without reasonable grounds
• Section 153 – Disciplinary consequences for reckless questions
• Section 154–155 – Indecent, scandalous, insulting, or annoying questions

The judge has a duty to control cross-examination.

Section 150 – When Witness Is to Be Compelled to Answer (Linked Concept)Section 150 provides that:

• If a question under Section 149 relates to a matter relevant to the suit or proceeding,
• Then Section 137 applies, and
• The witness must answer, even if the answer may incriminate him.

The word “such” refers back to questions under Section 149.

Distinction Between Section 149 and Section 150 (Note Form)Section 149 vs Section 150

• Nature
  • Section 149: Defines what questions may be asked
  • Section 150: Defines when answers must be given
• Focus
  • Section 149: Scope of cross-examination
  • Section 150: Compulsion to answer
• Self-Incrimination
  • Section 149: Fear of incrimination does not bar questioning
  • Section 150: Fear of incrimination does not excuse refusal when relevance exists
• Judicial Role
  • Section 149: Allows wide questioning
  • Section 150: Mandates compulsion where relevance is clear

Critical Analysis
Strengths

1. Enables effective testing of witness credibility
2. Helps uncover bias, interest, and falsehood
3. Prevents witnesses from hiding behind self-incrimination
4. Balances wide cross-examination with statutory safeguards
5. Protects victims in sexual offence cases

Limitations

1. Risk of misuse if safeguards are ignored
2. Heavy reliance on judicial control
3. Requires careful balancing of dignity and truth-finding

10 Illustrative Case Scenarios

1. Witness questioned on bias – allowed
2. Witness identity and relationship probed
3. Character attacked to test credibility
4. Witness compelled to answer relevant question
5. Sexual history question barred by proviso
6. Omission challenged only if asked in cross-examination
7. Fear of incrimination rejected
8. Judge restrains abusive questioning
9. Cross-examination aids truth discovery
10. Fair trial preserved

Conclusion
​Section 149 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 lays down the breadth of lawful cross-examination, allowing questions to test veracity, reveal identity and position, and shake credibility—even at the risk of self-incrimination. Section 150 complements it by making clear that where such questions relate to relevant matters, the witness must answer.
Together, these provisions ensure that cross-examination remains a powerful truth-finding tool, while subsequent sections (150–155) ensure it is exercised responsibly, fairly, and with due regard to dignity and justice.