​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.

​Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 –
Impeaching the Credit of a Witness (Section 158)

Case Scenario
In a criminal trial, a witness gives strong testimony against the accused. However, during cross-examination, it is revealed that the witness had earlier given a different version of events and may have accepted money from an interested party. The defence argues that the witness is unreliable and his evidence should not be trusted. The court must now decide whether the credibility of the witness has been sufficiently shaken.
This situation is governed by Section 158 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

Meaning of Impeaching the Credit of a Witness
​A witness is considered living evidence, and the credibility of such evidence is crucial to the administration of justice. However, witnesses may be:

• Influenced
• Coerced
• Biased
• Motivated by personal or corrupt interests

Impeaching the credit of a witness means:

• Challenging or shaking the reliability of the witness
• Exposing inconsistencies, bias, corruption, or untruthfulness
• Convincing the court that the witness is not trustworthy, and therefore his evidence should not be relied upon

In simple terms, impeachment is the process of discrediting a witness.

Section 158 – Statutory Provision (Explained Simply)Section 158 provides that the credit of a witness may be impeached:

• By the adverse party as a matter of right, or
• By the party who calls the witness, but only with the consent of the Court

The section specifies three recognised methods of impeaching a witness’s credit.

Modes of Impeaching the Credit of a Witness (Note Form)(i) Evidence of Unworthiness of Credit

• Independent witnesses may testify that:
  • From their personal knowledge
  • The witness has a general reputation for untruthfulness

Key points:

• The impeaching witness must speak about:
  • What is generally said about the witness
  • Among people with whom the witness lives or works

This method attacks the general character for veracity.

(ii) Proof of Bribery or Corrupt Inducement

• The credit of a witness may be impeached by proving that:
  • He has been bribed, or
  • He accepted an offer of a bribe, or
  • He received any other corrupt inducement to give evidence

Important clarification:

• A mere offer of a bribe is not sufficient
• It must be shown that:
  • The witness demanded, accepted, or acted upon the bribe

This method attacks the integrity and impartiality of the witness.

(iii) Proof of Former Inconsistent Statements

• The witness’s credit may be impeached by proving that:
  • He made previous statements
  • Which are inconsistent with his testimony in court

Such inconsistency shows:

• Unreliability
• Falsehood
• Lack of truthfulness

This is one of the most commonly used methods of impeachment.

Explanation: Charging a Witness for False Evidence

• A witness who testifies that another witness is unworthy of credit:
  • Cannot give reasons in examination-in-chief
  • But may be asked reasons during cross-examination

Important rule:

• The answers given by such a witness:
  • Cannot be contradicted

However:

• If those answers are false,
• The witness may be charged with giving false evidence later

Illustrative Examples (Explained)Example (a)

• A sues B for goods sold
• C testifies that he delivered the goods
• Evidence is produced that C earlier said he did not deliver them

👉 This evidence is admissible to impeach C’s credit.

Example (b)

• A is accused of murdering B
• C states that B, while dying, accused A
• Evidence shows C earlier said B did not make such a declaration

👉 This evidence is admissible to impeach C’s credibility.

Scope of Section 158

• Impeachment aims to:
  • Shake the reliability of testimony
  • Expose the real character of the witness
• Credit of a witness may be impeached:
  • By cross-examination
  • By independent evidence
• Rights of parties:
  • Adverse party: absolute right to impeach
  • Party calling the witness: only with court’s permission

Relationship Between Section 148 and Section 158(c)

• Section 148:
  • Deals with contradiction of a witness
  • Requires previous statements to be:
    • In writing, or
    • Reduced to writing
• Section 158(c):
  • Allows impeachment using:
    • Oral or written former statements

However:

• If the former statement is in writing,
• The procedure under Section 148 must be followed

Connection with Corroboration

• Sections 159 to 161 deal with corroboration of witnesses
• Section 158 deals with the opposite process—discrediting a witness
• Together, these provisions ensure:
  • Only reliable evidence is accepted
  • Truth is separated from falsehood

Critical AnalysisStrengths

1. Protects courts from unreliable testimony
2. Prevents miscarriage of justice
3. Encourages truthful testimony
4. Balances rights of both parties
5. Strengthens fact-finding process

Limitations

1. Risk of character assassination if misused
2. Requires careful judicial supervision
3. Overemphasis on minor inconsistencies may be unfair

10 Illustrative Case Scenarios

1. Witness contradicted by prior statement
2. Evidence of bribery produced
3. Reputation for untruthfulness proved
4. Hostile witness impeached
5. False dying declaration exposed
6. Independent evidence discredits testimony
7. Oral inconsistent statement proved
8. Written contradiction proved following Section 148
9. Court permits party to impeach its own witness
10. Witness charged for giving false evidence

ConclusionSection 158 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 provides a comprehensive mechanism for impeaching the credit of a witness. By allowing credibility to be challenged through proof of untruthfulness, bribery, or inconsistent statements, the section ensures that courts rely only on trustworthy evidence.
At the same time, procedural safeguards—such as requiring court permission and adherence to prescribed methods—prevent abuse. Together with the rules on corroboration, Section 158 plays a vital role in ensuring that justice is founded on reliable and truthful testimony.

​Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 –
Former Statements of a Witness May Be Proved to Corroborate Later Testimony as to the Same Fact (Section 160)

Full Forms

• BNSS: Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
  → The criminal procedural law of India which has replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It governs investigation, inquiry, recording of statements, trial, and criminal justice administration.
• FIR: First Information Report
  → The earliest information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, recorded by the police under criminal procedure law.

Case Scenario (Beginning as Required)In a criminal trial, an eyewitness initially states in court that he saw the accused commit the offence. During cross-examination, he retracts his statement and claims he did not actually witness the incident. The prosecution then proves that immediately after the occurrence, the same witness had narrated the incident to his father, and later to an officer legally authorised by the State Government to investigate the matter. The question arises: Can these earlier statements be used to support the witness’s testimony given in court?
This issue is governed by Section 160 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

Section 160 – Statutory Rule (Explained Simply)Section 160 provides that, to corroborate the testimony of a witness, any former statement made by that witness relating to the same fact may be proved, if such statement was made:

1. At or about the time when the fact took place, or
2. Before any authority legally competent to investigate the fact

Such former statements are not substantive evidence by themselves, but they may be used to support, strengthen, or confirm the testimony given later in court.

Scope of Section 160

• This section allows corroboration by showing that the witness has been consistent in his version.
• The principle underlying the provision is that consistency enhances credibility.
• Corroboration means:
  • Confirmation
  • Support
  • Strengthening of evidence by additional material

Important Limitation

• Former statements cannot stand alone.
• They only make the main testimony more probable and reliable.

Conditions for Admitting Former Statements (Note Form)Former statements may be admitted for corroboration under two conditions only:

(i) Statement Made “At or About the Time” of the Occurrence

• If made contemporaneously with the incident:
  • It has high probative value
  • It may even form part of res gestae
• If made after some delay:
  • It loses value as res gestae
  • Still admissible for corroboration, but with lesser weight

Judicial Test:

• Was the statement made as early as reasonably possible?
• Was it made before the possibility of tutoring or concoction?

(ii) Statement Made Before an Authority Legally Competent to Investigate

• Statements made before such an authority are admissible:
  • Even if recorded long after the incident
• The authority need not be statutory in nature.

Case Law: SPS Rathore v. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)

• R.R. Singh was authorised by the State Government to inquire into the matter
• Statements made to him were admissible
• The Court held that legal authorisation, not statutory power, is sufficient

Case Law: Mahavir Singh v. State of Haryana

• A solitary eyewitness narrated the incident to his father soon after the occurrence
• The father lodged a First Information Report (FIR) based on this narration
• The time gap was reasonable
• The father’s testimony was held admissible to corroborate the eyewitness

Form of Former Statements

• Under Section 160:
  • Former statements may be oral or written

Distinction from Contradiction

• For contradiction under Section 148, the former statement must be in writing
• For corroboration under Section 160, oral statements are sufficient

Illustrative Example (Explained)

• Ram states in examination-in-chief: “I saw the accused shoot X.”
• In cross-examination, he denies having seen the incident.
• He admits that immediately after the incident he told A, B, and C that he saw the shooting.

👉 This admission:

• Corroborates his statement in chief
• Is not substantive evidence
• Can only be used to strengthen credibility under Section 160

In such a situation:

• The prosecution may rely on the former statement:
  • To contradict the denial in cross-examination, or
  • To corroborate the earlier testimony in chief

Evidentiary Value of FIR (First Information Report)

• An FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence
• It can be used only:
  • To corroborate the informant under Section 160, or
  • To contradict the informant under Section 148

Case Law: Nisar Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh

• FIR cannot be used:
  • As evidence against the maker if he later becomes an accused
  • To corroborate or contradict any other witness

Its use is strictly limited to the maker of the FIR.

Evidentiary Value of Statements under BNSSStatements under Section 180 BNSS

• Statements recorded by police during investigation
• Can be used only for contradiction, not corroboration

Statements under Section 183 BNSS

• Statements recorded by a Magistrate
• Can be used for:
  • Corroboration under Section 160, and
  • Contradiction under Section 148

Case Law: Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Rajahmundry v. Duncan Agro Industries Ltd.The Court held:

• Statements recorded by a Magistrate carry greater sanctity
• Evidence given on oath in court is substantive evidence
• Magistrates must:
  • Ask explanatory questions
  • Elicit complete information, especially from illiterate or rustic witnesses

What Matters May Be Proved under Section 160The following may be proved for corroboration:

• Former statements relating to the same fact
• Statements made at or about the time of occurrence
• Statements made before legally competent authorities
• Oral or written statements
• FIR (only to corroborate its maker)
• Magistrate-recorded statements under Section 183 BNSS

All such matters are admissible only for corroboration, not as independent proof.

Critical AnalysisStrengths

1. Enhances credibility of truthful witnesses
2. Prevents rejection of evidence due to minor inconsistencies
3. Balances fairness between prosecution and defence
4. Recognises practical realities of human behaviour
5. Strengthens the truth-finding process

Limitations

1. Corroboration cannot replace substantive evidence
2. Risk of over-reliance on consistency alone
3. Requires careful judicial scrutiny

ConclusionSection 160 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 provides a fair and structured mechanism for corroborating witness testimony through former consistent statements. By allowing such statements—oral or written, contemporaneous or made before competent authorities—to support later testimony, the section strengthens reliability while ensuring that corroboration does not become a substitute for proof.
By clearly defining the limited evidentiary role of First Information Reports (FIRs) and statements recorded under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the provision maintains a careful balance between credibility, fairness, and justice.

​Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 –
Questions Tending to Corroborate Evidence of Relevant Fact, Admissible (Section 159)

Case Scenario (Beginning as Required)In a robbery case, an accomplice is examined as an approver. He narrates how the robbery took place and also mentions several small, unrelated incidents that occurred while he was travelling to and from the place of occurrence—such as meeting certain people or stopping at a tea stall. The prosecution then leads independent evidence to prove these surrounding incidents. The question arises: Why are these seemingly unrelated questions and facts allowed in evidence?
Section 159 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 explains this principle.

Meaning of CorroborationBefore understanding Section 159, it is essential to understand corroboration.

• Cambridge Dictionary: To corroborate means to add proof to an account, statement, or idea by providing new information.
• Collins Dictionary: To corroborate means to provide evidence or information that supports something already stated.

In law, corroboration means strengthening or confirming evidence of a fact by additional independent evidence.

Section 159 – Statutory Rule (Explained Simply)Section 159 provides that:

• When a witness gives evidence of a relevant fact, and
• It is intended to corroborate that witness,

the witness may be questioned about:

• Any other circumstances
• Which he observed
• At or near the time or place where the relevant fact occurred

Provided that:

• The court is of the opinion that such circumstances, if proved, would corroborate the testimony of the witness regarding the relevant fact.

Scope and Object of Section 159Scope

• Section 159 allows questions beyond the main incident.
• The witness may be questioned about surrounding or incidental facts.
• These facts are not relevant by themselves, but become relevant only for corroboration.

Object

• To test the truthfulness and reliability of the witness
• To strengthen weak or suspicious testimony (e.g., accomplice evidence)
• To prevent convictions based solely on uncorroborated statements

Nature of Questions PermittedUnder Section 159:

• Questions may relate to:
  • Events before the main occurrence
  • Events after the main occurrence
  • Events near the place of occurrence

These questions are allowed only if:

• They help confirm the witness’s version of the main fact

Illustrative Example (Explained)

• A, an accomplice, gives evidence of a robbery.
• He also describes incidents that occurred on his way to and from the robbery location.
• Independent evidence is produced to prove those incidents.

👉 Even though those incidents are not part of the robbery itself, proving them:

• Supports the witness’s presence at the place and time of robbery
• Strengthens his testimony about the robbery

Important Rule Regarding Proof

• The surrounding circumstances:
  • Are not relevant facts by themselves
  • Are admissible only for corroboration

Therefore:

• The witness must first be questioned about those circumstances
• Only after that can independent evidence be given to prove them

This ensures fairness and prevents surprise evidence.

Why Such Corroborative Questions Are Necessary

• Corroboration increases confidence in testimony
• Especially important where:
  • Witness is an accomplice
  • Witness has an interest in the case
  • Witness credibility is doubtful

Section 159 thus acts as a safeguard against false implication.

Critical AnalysisStrengths

1. Strengthens reliability of evidence
2. Assists courts in assessing credibility
3. Especially useful in accomplice testimony
4. Prevents blind reliance on single statements
5. Encourages comprehensive fact-finding

Limitations

1. Corroboration cannot replace substantive proof
2. Risk of over-emphasis on minor details
3. Requires careful judicial discretion

10 Illustrative Case Scenarios

1. Accomplice questioned about route taken to crime scene
2. Witness questioned about people met before incident
3. Surrounding events corroborated by independent witnesses
4. Extra details support presence at crime scene
5. Witness questioned about conduct after offence
6. Independent proof strengthens main testimony
7. Court rejects irrelevant corroborative questions
8. Over-detailed questioning curtailed by court
9. Credibility enhanced through consistency
10. Fair trial ensured by corroborative safeguards

ConclusionSection 159 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 permits questioning of a witness on surrounding circumstances to corroborate evidence of a relevant fact. These questions, though relating to facts not directly in issue, play a vital role in confirming the truthfulness of the witness’s testimony.
By allowing such corroborative questioning—subject to judicial scrutiny—the section strengthens the evidentiary process and ensures that justice is based on supported and reliable testimony rather than isolated assertions.

​Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 –
Exclusion of Evidence to Contradict Answers to Questions Testing Veracity (Section 156)

Case Scenario
During a trial, a witness is asked whether he was earlier dismissed from a job for dishonesty. He denies it. The opposite party then attempts to bring documents and witnesses to prove that he was indeed dismissed for dishonesty. The court must decide: Can independent evidence be given to contradict the witness on this point, which relates only to his character and credibility?
The answer lies in Section 156 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

Purpose of Section 156
​Section 156 deals with the limits on contradicting a witness when he answers questions meant only to test his veracity or shake his credit. The law draws a clear boundary between:

• Questions relevant to the facts in issue, and
• Questions asked merely to attack the character or credibility of a witness

The main objective is to prevent trials from turning into lengthy inquiries into the personal character of witnesses rather than adjudication of the actual dispute.

General Rule under Section 156 When:

• A witness is asked a question that is relevant only to test his credibility by injuring his character, and
• The witness answers that question,

👉 No independent evidence can be given to contradict his answer, regardless of whether the answer is true or false.
However:

• If the answer is false, the witness may later be charged with giving false evidence under Section 229 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

Thus, the witness’s answer is treated as final and conclusive for the purpose of that trial.

Rationale Behind the Rule

• Courts are concerned with facts in issue, not the general character of witnesses
• Endless contradiction on collateral matters would:
  • Waste judicial time
  • Distract from the real controversy
• Therefore, the law says:
  “Take the witness at his word on character-related questions and move on.”

Exceptions to the General RuleSection 156 itself provides two important exceptions to prevent abuse by dishonest witnesses.

Exception 1: Denial of Previous Conviction

• If a witness is asked:
  • Whether he has been previously convicted of a crime, and
• He denies such conviction,

👉 Evidence may be given to prove the previous conviction.
Reason:

• Prior conviction is a matter of serious credibility
• A witness cannot escape scrutiny by lying about his criminal past

Exception 2: Questions Impeaching Impartiality

• If a witness is asked a question:
  • Intended to show bias, interest, or partiality, and
• He denies the facts suggested,

👉 His answer may be contradicted by independent evidence.
Examples of bias:

• Enmity
• Revenge
• Bribery
• Family feud
• Financial interest

Illustrations ExplainedIllustration (a)

• Claimant in an insurance case is asked about a prior fraudulent claim
• He denies it
• Evidence is offered to prove past fraud

❌ Evidence inadmissible
✔ Because it relates only to character

Illustration (b)

• Witness denies dismissal for dishonesty
• Evidence is offered to prove dismissal

❌ Evidence inadmissible
✔ Purely character-related

Illustration (c)

• Witness claims to have seen B at Goa
• He denies being himself at Varanasi on that day
• Evidence shows he was at Varanasi

✔ Evidence admissible
✔ Because it contradicts a fact in issue, not merely credibility

Illustration (d)

• Witness denies family feud with accused
• Evidence proves existence of feud

✔ Evidence admissible
✔ Because it shows bias and lack of impartiality

Scope of Section 156

• Applies only when:
  • Question is relevant solely to test credibility
• Does not apply when:
  • Question relates to a fact in issue or relevant fact

The court must carefully distinguish between:

• Character-based questions, and
• Fact-based questions

Important Judicial ClarificationState of Karnataka v. R. Yarappa Reddy

• Allegation: Eye-witness had family loan dispute with accused
• Witness was not questioned about the alleged transaction
• Later, prosecution tried to contradict her evidence through other witnesses

❌ Not allowed
Held:

• If a witness is not first questioned,
• There is no answer to contradict,
• Therefore, no independent evidence can be led

Key Legal Principles (Note Form)

• Character-related answers → Conclusive
• False answers → Perjury possible, not contradiction
• Previous conviction denial → Contradiction allowed
• Bias or partiality denial → Contradiction allowed
• Fact in issue denial → Contradiction allowed
• No question → No contradiction

Critical AnalysisStrengths

1. Prevents unnecessary character assassination
2. Keeps trial focused on real issues
3. Saves judicial time
4. Protects witnesses from harassment
5. Ensures procedural discipline

Limitations

1. Dishonest witnesses may escape exposure in some cases
2. Heavy reliance on perjury proceedings
3. Requires careful judicial distinction between fact and credibility

10 Illustrative Case Scenarios

1. Witness denies theft in past – cannot contradict
2. Witness denies conviction – conviction proved
3. Witness denies family feud – feud proved
4. Witness denies presence at place – contradiction allowed
5. Witness denies bias – evidence of bribe allowed
6. Witness lies about dismissal – no contradiction
7. Witness not questioned – later contradiction barred
8. Witness lies on oath – prosecuted for perjury
9. Court rejects collateral contradictions
10. Trial focused on substantive facts

ConclusionSection 156 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 strikes a careful balance between testing the credibility of witnesses and preventing trials from degenerating into inquiries about personal character. While the general rule bars contradiction of answers given solely to impeach credit, the law wisely carves out exceptions for prior convictions and bias to prevent misuse.
By enforcing procedural discipline and focusing on facts in issue, Section 156 ensures that justice remains efficient, fair, and centered on truth rather than character assassination.

​Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 –
Questions by a Party to Its Own Witness (Section 157)

Case Scenario
In a criminal trial, the prosecution calls a witness who had earlier supported its case during investigation. However, while giving evidence in court, the witness begins to deviate from his earlier statement and gives answers favourable to the accused. The prosecutor seeks the court’s permission to ask leading and confrontational questions to this very witness in order to bring out the truth. The issue arises: Can a party cross-examine its own witness, and if so, under what circumstances?
This situation is governed by Section 157 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

Examination-in-Chief: Basic Concept

• The examination of a witness by the party who calls him is called examination-in-chief.
• The object of examination-in-chief is:
  • To place before the court evidence relevant to the issues
  • To elicit facts favourable to the party calling the witness

Ordinarily, cross-examination is the right of the adverse party. However, Section 157 creates an exception to this general rule.

Section 157 – Statutory Provision (Explained Simply)Section 157(1)The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put to him any question which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.
Section 157(2)Grant of such permission does not disentitle the party calling the witness from relying on any part of the evidence of that witness.
In simple terms:

• A party may, with court’s permission, cross-examine its own witness
• Even after such cross-examination, the party may still rely on the truthful part of the witness’s testimony

Scope of Section 157

• The section confers judicial discretion on the court
• There are no rigid statutory conditions, but discretion must be:
  • Exercised judiciously
  • Guided by the interest of justice

A party is not normally allowed to cross-examine its own witness unless the court is satisfied that:

• The witness has shown hostility, or
• The witness has resiled from a material earlier statement, or
• The witness is not speaking the truth, making cross-examination necessary to extract the truth

Meaning of Hostile Witness

• The term “hostile witness” is not defined in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.
• Historically, the concept originated in Common Law to deal with witnesses who:
  • Deliberately harm the case of the party calling them
  • Show animus or unwillingness to tell the truth

In Indian Law

• A hostile witness is one who:
  • Is not desirous of telling the truth at the instance of the party calling him
  • Exhibits bias, animosity, or deliberate deviation from earlier statements

The right to treat a witness as hostile and to cross-examine him is governed entirely by Section 157.

Nature of Questions Permitted Under Section 157Once the court grants permission, the party calling the witness may ask:

1. Leading questions (Section 146)
2. Questions relating to previous written statements (Section 148)
3. Questions intended to injure the character of the witness (Section 149)
4. Questions impeaching the credit of the witness (Section 158)

The grant of permission is always subject to the absolute discretion of the court.

Judicial Principles Governing Section 157The Supreme Court has laid down important principles regarding the scope of Section 157 (earlier Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act). These principles may be summarised as follows:
(i) Requirement of Hostility or Untruthfulness

• Before allowing cross-examination of one’s own witness, there must be material showing:
  • Hostile animus, or
  • Unwillingness to tell the truth

(ii) Stage of Exercise of Power

• The power under Section 157:
  • Is not confined to examination-in-chief
  • May be exercised at any stage of examination

Reason:

• A clever witness may appear truthful in chief examination but subtly contradict himself during cross-examination.

(iii) Distinction Between Hostility and Truthful Unfavourable Answers

• A witness should not be declared hostile merely because:
  • He speaks the truth
  • His evidence does not suit the party calling him

The court must distinguish between:

• A genuinely hostile witness, and
• A witness who truthfully states facts adverse to the party

(iv) No Hard-and-Fast Rule

• Applicability of Section 157 depends on:
  • Facts and circumstances of each case
  • Satisfaction of the court

(v) Evidentiary Value of Hostile Witness

• Declaring a witness hostile:
  • Does not make his evidence inadmissible
  • Does not automatically render him unreliable

The court may:

• Accept the reliable portion of his testimony
• Discard the untrustworthy part
• Base conviction if his testimony is corroborated by other reliable evidence

Testimony of a Hostile Witness and ConvictionIndian courts consistently hold that:

• Evidence of a hostile witness cannot be rejected outright
• The court must assess:
  • Which part of the testimony is credible
  • Whether it is corroborated by other evidence

Even the testimony of a hostile witness can form the basis of conviction if corroborated.

Evidentiary Value of Testimony of a Hostile WitnessThere are two theoretical views:

1. Evidence of hostile witness has some value and should not be discarded entirely
2. Evidence of hostile witness has no value

Indian Position

• Indian law adopts the first view
• The testimony of a hostile witness:
  • Is not automatically false
  • Must be evaluated carefully
  • May be relied upon to the extent it is credible

Both prosecution and defence may rely on such parts of the testimony that support their respective cases.

Relationship with Impeaching Credit of Witness

• Credit of a witness may be impeached in two ways:
  1. Through cross-examination (Sections 148 and 149)
  2. Through independent (extrinsic) evidence (Section 158)

Section 157 supplements Sections 148 and 149 by allowing the party calling the witness to cross-examine him with the court’s permission.
These powers are, however, subject to limitations contained in Sections 151 to 156.

Critical AnalysisStrengths

1. Prevents miscarriage of justice due to hostile witnesses
2. Allows truth to be extracted despite witness manipulation
3. Gives courts flexibility to control proceedings
4. Balances fairness to both prosecution and defence
5. Recognises ground realities like coercion and influence

Limitations

1. Risk of misuse if discretion is not exercised carefully
2. May blur distinction between examination-in-chief and cross-examination
3. Requires strong judicial vigilance

ConclusionSection 157 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 is a crucial provision that empowers courts to permit a party to question its own witness in the manner of cross-examination when the witness turns hostile or untruthful. While this power is discretionary, it plays a vital role in ensuring that justice is not defeated by manipulated or unreliable testimony.
At the same time, Indian courts have consistently held that the evidence of a hostile witness is not to be discarded wholesale. The judge must carefully assess which portions of the testimony are trustworthy and may rely upon them if corroborated by other reliable evidence. Thus, Section 157 strikes a careful balance between procedural fairness and the ultimate goal of discovering the truth.

​Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 –
Refreshing Memory of a Witness (Section 162)

Case Scenario
During a trial, a witness is questioned about events that took place several years ago. He appears unsure about specific dates and details. To answer accurately, he requests permission from the court to look at his diary entries made at the time of the incident. The court must decide whether the witness can lawfully refresh his memory using those writings and under what conditions.
This situation is governed by Section 162 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.


Section 162 – Refreshing Memory
Statutory Rule Explained in Simple English
Section 162 permits a witness, while under examination, to refresh his memory by referring to certain writings.
Section 162(1): Refreshing Memory from Writings
A witness may refresh his memory by referring to:

• Any writing made by him:
  • At the time of the transaction, or
  • So soon thereafter that the court considers the facts were still fresh in his memory

Provided that:

• The witness may also refer to a writing made by another person,
• If the witness read it within the same time period, and
• At the time of reading, he knew it to be correct

Section 162(2): Refreshing Memory by Reference to Copies and Treatises

• A witness may, with the permission of the court, refer to a copy of a document
• The court must be satisfied that:
  • There is a sufficient and reasonable reason for non-production of the original

Special Rule for Experts

• An expert witness may refresh memory by referring to:
  • Professional treatises
  • Works of authority in the field

Scope of Section 162

• Normally, a witness testifies from personal recollection
• Human memory is imperfect and fades over time
• Section 162 recognizes this limitation and allows:
  • Written aids to assist recollection
  • Accurate and complete testimony

Important point:

• The document itself need not be admissible as evidence
• The facts sought to be proved must be admissible

Example:

• An insufficiently stamped promissory note may still be used to refresh memory

Rules Regarding Refreshing Memory (Note Form)
A witness may refresh memory using writings falling under the following categories:
(i) Own Writing

• Writing made by the witness himself
• Made:
  • At the time of the transaction, or
  • Soon after, when facts were fresh in memory

(ii) Third-Party Documents

• Writing made by another person
• Conditions:
  • Witness must have read it soon after the transaction
  • At the time of reading, he knew it to be correct

Meaning of “Writing”

• Includes printed matter
• Example:
  • A witness to a speech may refresh memory using a newspaper report,
  • If he read it soon afterwards and knew it was accurate

(iii) Professional Treatises

• Applicable to expert witnesses
• Experts may refresh memory using:
  • Standard textbooks
  • Professional works regarded as authoritative

(iv) Copies of Documents (Secondary Evidence)

• A witness may refer to a copy of a document:
  • Only with court’s permission
• Court must be satisfied that:
  • Original document cannot be produced for valid reasons

If no sufficient reason exists:

• The original document must be produced

Documents That May Be Used for Refreshing Memory
Section 162 does not restrict the type of documents. Any document fulfilling statutory conditions may be used, such as:

• Account books
• Private notebooks
• Diaries
• Registers
• Horoscopes

Documents Not Permissible for Refreshing Memory
Due to restrictions under Section 181 of BNSS:

• Statements recorded during police investigation (e.g., Section 180 BNSS)
• Case diaries

However:

• Statements recorded under Section 183 BNSS may be used for refreshing memory

Purpose of Section 162

• To secure full benefit of witness’s recollection
• To reduce errors caused by lapse of memory
• To assist the court in arriving at the truth
• To balance human fallibility with judicial accuracy

Critical Analysis
Strengths

1. Recognizes natural weakness of human memory
2. Ensures accurate and complete testimony
3. Aids truth-finding process
4. Allows flexibility in evidence handling
5. Supports expert testimony

Limitations

1. Risk of tutoring if not carefully monitored
2. Heavy reliance on judicial discretion
3. Potential misuse of unauthenticated documents

10 Illustrative Case Scenarios

1. Witness refers to diary entries
2. Accountant refreshes memory from ledger
3. Expert doctor refers to medical textbook
4. Witness uses copy due to lost original
5. Newspaper used to recall speech
6. Private notebook used in testimony
7. Court refuses copy for lack of justification
8. Police statement disallowed for refreshing memory
9. Business records used to aid recollection
10. Fair trial ensured through controlled use

Conclusion
Section 162 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 provides a practical and realistic mechanism for refreshing the memory of witnesses. By allowing reference to writings, copies, and professional treatises—subject to judicial control—the section ensures that evidence reflects truth rather than the limitations of human memory.
At the same time, safeguards against misuse preserve fairness and integrity in judicial proceedings, making Section 162 a vital component of modern evidence law.

​Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 –
Testimony to Facts Stated in Documents (Section 163) — With Differences in Note Form


Case Scenario
In a commercial dispute, a bookkeeper is called to testify about transactions recorded many years ago. He no longer remembers the individual transactions but confidently states that the books were regularly and correctly maintained by him. The court must decide whether his testimony, based on those records, is admissible despite the absence of present memory.
This situation is governed by Section 163 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.


Section 163 – Testimony to Facts Stated in Documents Mentioned in Section 162
Rule Explained in Simple English
Section 163 provides that:

• A witness may testify to facts recorded in a document, even if he has no present recollection of those facts,
• Provided the witness is sure that the facts were correctly recorded at the time the document was made.

Thus, certainty about the accuracy of the record replaces present memory.


Illustrations

• A bookkeeper may testify to entries in business accounts even if he has forgotten the transactions.
• A librarian may testify to entries made in library registers if he knows they were correctly maintained.

Scope of Section 163

• Extends the principle of Section 162
• Applies to cases of past recollection recorded
• Independent recollection of facts is not mandatory
• Recognition of handwriting or signature and confidence in correctness is sufficient

Nature of Evidence under Section 163

• The document itself becomes evidence of the facts recorded
• The witness supports the document’s reliability
• The court relies on the recorded memory rather than present recollection

Difference Between Section 162 and Section 163 (Note Form)
Section 162 vs Section 163

• Basis of Evidence
  • Section 162: Present recollection of the witness
  • Section 163: Past recollection recorded in the document
• Role of Document
  • Section 162: Document is only a memory aid
  • Section 163: Document itself becomes evidence
• Memory Requirement
  • Section 162: Witness must recall facts after refreshing memory
  • Section 163: Witness need not recall facts, only confirm correctness
• Nature of Testimony
  • Section 162: Oral testimony is primary
  • Section 163: Recorded document is primary
• Type of Recollection
  • Section 162: Present recollection revived
  • Section 163: Past recollection preserved
• Reliance
  • Section 162: On witness’s memory
  • Section 163: On accuracy of record

Importance of Section 163

• Recognizes limitations of human memory
• Supports reliance on systematically maintained records
• Facilitates proof in commercial, administrative, and professional cases
• Prevents injustice caused by lapse of time

Critical Analysis
Strengths

• Practical and realistic approach
• Supports efficient adjudication
• Enhances evidentiary value of business records
• Reduces unnecessary rejection of reliable evidence

Limitations

• Risk if records are inaccurate or manipulated
• Depends heavily on witness credibility
• Requires strict judicial scrutiny

10 Illustrative Case Scenarios

1. Bookkeeper proves ledger entries
2. Librarian relies on register
3. Accountant testifies to audit records
4. Doctor refers to patient history
5. Banker relies on transaction logs
6. Clerk proves office records
7. Warehouse manager uses stock register
8. Witness forgets event but confirms record accuracy
9. Court tests document through cross-examination
10. Evidence accepted based on regular practice

Conclusion
Section 163 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 embodies the principle of past recollection recorded, allowing documents to speak for facts when human memory fails. By clearly distinguishing it from Section 162 and giving structured evidentiary value to reliable records, the provision strengthens truth-finding while remaining subject to judicial scrutiny.
This section ensures that justice is guided by accuracy, reliability, and practicality, not defeated by the natural fading of memory.

​Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 –
What Matters May Be Proved in Connection with a Proved Statement Relevant under Sections 26 or 27 (Section 161)


Case Scenario
In a murder trial, the prosecution relies on a dying declaration made by the victim, which is admissible under Section 26 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. The person who made the statement is no longer alive and therefore cannot be cross-examined. The defence argues that since the maker of the statement is unavailable, no further evidence should be allowed regarding the truthfulness or credibility of that statement.
The court must now decide: Can facts be proved to support or contradict such a statement, even though the maker is not before the court?
Section 161 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 provides the answer.


Section 161 – Matters That May Be Proved in Connection with Statements under Sections 26 or 27
Statutory Rule (Paraphrased in Simple English)
Whenever a statement that is relevant under Section 26 or Section 27 is proved, then:

• All facts may be proved which:
  • Contradict the statement, or
  • Corroborate the statement, or
  • Impeach (discredit) the credibility of the maker, or
  • Confirm the credibility of the maker

And these matters may be proved in the same manner as they could have been proved:

• If the person who made the statement had been called as a witness, and
• Had denied the truth of those matters during cross-examination.

Meaning and Purpose of Section 161
Section 161 ensures that:

• Statements admitted under Sections 26 or 27 are not treated as unquestionable truth
• The opposing party is given a fair opportunity to:
  • Challenge their correctness, and
  • Test their reliability

The provision places such statements on the same footing as oral testimony, even when the maker is unavailable.


Application Where the Maker of the Statement Is Unavailable
When the maker of the statement:

• Cannot be found, or
• Is dead (e.g., dying declaration),

and the statement is proved as relevant under Section 26 or 27, then:

• Evidence may still be given:
  • To confirm the statement, or
  • To contradict it
• Evidence may also be given:
  • To support or impeach the credibility of the person who made it

This is done to the same extent as if:

• The person were alive,
• Had appeared before the court, and
• Had been cross-examined.

Rationale Behind Section 161
The rationale is based on fair trial and natural justice:

• Normally, credibility of a witness is tested by cross-examination
• When the maker of a statement is not available, cross-examination is impossible
• Section 161 compensates for this by allowing:
  • Independent evidence to test truthfulness
  • Safeguards against false or unreliable statements

Thus, the law ensures:
The same safeguards for veracity as if the maker were personally before the court.


Nature of Evidence Permitted under Section 161
Under this section, evidence may be led to:

• Contradict the statement
• Corroborate the statement
• Impeach the credit (character, reliability, trustworthiness) of the maker
• Confirm the credit of the maker

This includes:

• Prior inconsistent statements
• Circumstances affecting credibility
• Conduct of the maker
• Independent corroborative facts

Relationship with Sections 26 and 27

• Section 26 / 27: Make certain statements relevant and admissible
• Section 161: Regulates how such statements may be tested for truth

Section 161 does not create relevance, but provides procedural fairness after relevance is established.


Connection with Refreshing Memory (Sections 162–164)
Sections 162 to 164 deal with refreshing memory of witnesses through writings.
Illustrative Case: State of Andhra Pradesh v. Cheemalapati Ganeshwara Rao
Facts (Simplified)

• Accused were charged with conspiracy, breach of trust, falsification of accounts
• An approver gave evidence
• He refreshed his memory by referring to account books maintained by him
• Absence of entries in certain books was relied upon against the accused

Held
The court held:

• Section 162 expressly permits a witness to refresh memory:
  • By writings made by himself, or
  • By writings made by others and read by him soon after
• The witness need not wait until he is “in difficulty”
• He may refer to documents generally to ensure accuracy

Thus, objections to refreshing memory in such a manner were rejected.


Critical Analysis of Section 161
Strengths

1. Ensures fairness despite absence of cross-examination
2. Prevents blind reliance on dying declarations or similar statements
3. Maintains balance between admissibility and credibility
4. Protects rights of the accused
5. Upholds principles of natural justice

Limitations

1. Depends heavily on quality of surrounding evidence
2. Risk of over-reliance on circumstantial corroboration
3. Requires careful judicial evaluation

10 Illustrative Case Scenarios

1. Dying declaration contradicted by medical evidence
2. Dying declaration corroborated by eyewitness testimony
3. Prior conduct impeaches credibility of declarant
4. Statement supported by surrounding circumstances
5. Inconsistent prior statement proved
6. Motive shown to affect reliability
7. Character evidence affecting credibility
8. Absence of corroboration weakens statement
9. Independent evidence confirms truth
10. Court treats statement like testimony of unavailable witness

Conclusion
Section 161 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 plays a crucial role in ensuring fairness when statements admissible under Sections 26 or 27 are relied upon. It allows courts to admit evidence that either supports or challenges such statements, thereby providing safeguards equivalent to cross-examination.
By placing these statements on par with live testimony for the purpose of testing truth and credibility, Section 161 strengthens the justice delivery system and ensures that admissibility does not become unquestioned acceptance.

Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 –
Giving, as Evidence, of a Document Called for and Produced on Notice (Section 166)

Case Scenario (Beginning as Required)

In a civil suit over financial transactions, the defendant believes that the plaintiff’s account books contain entries favourable to the defence. The defendant serves a notice on the plaintiff to produce those account books. During trial, the plaintiff produces the books, and the defendant inspects them. Later, when the defendant hesitates to place those books on record because some entries appear unfavourable, the plaintiff insists that the documents be given in evidence.
The question arises: Can the party who called for and inspected the document now refuse to put it in evidence?


Section 166 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 squarely governs this situation.

Section 166 – Giving as Evidence a Document Called for and Produced on Notice

Statutory Rule (Paraphrased in Simple English)

When:

1. One party gives notice to the other party to produce a document, and
2. The document is produced and inspected by the party who called for it,

then:

• The party who called for and inspected the document must give it in evidence
• If the party producing the document demands that it be so given

In other words, once a party inspects a document obtained on notice, he cannot later refuse to rely on it as evidence if the producing party insists.

Rationale Behind Section 166

The rationale of this provision is based on fairness and procedural discipline:

• A party who compels production of a document must:
  • Take the risk of its contents
  • Accept that the document may operate against him

The law does not permit

• Selective use of documents
• Tactical inspection followed by suppression

This principle applies equally to:

• Civil proceedings
• Criminal trials

Scope of Section 166

• Applies when documents are produced at the instance of the opposite party
• Prevents misuse of the right to call for documents
• Ensures transparency in judicial proceedings

Important Limitation

• If the document has already been produced before the court by any party,
  👉 Section 166 does not apply.

Essentials for the Application of Section 166

Three essential conditions must be satisfied:

1. Notice to Produce
   • One party must require the other party to produce a document
2. Actual Production and Inspection
   • The document must be produced and inspected by the party who sought it
3. Demand by Producing Party
   • The party producing the document must demand that it be given in evidence

Only when all three are present does Section 166 operate.

Evidentiary Value of a Document Produced Under Section 166

Does the Document Automatically Become Proof?

No. A document produced under Section 166:

• Does not automatically prove its contents
• Does not become conclusive evidence

The court must still examine:

• Relevancy
• Admissibility
• Proof of genuineness and truth

Document Must Be Considered as a Whole

Once a document is admitted:

• It becomes evidence against both parties
• It must be read as a whole, not selectively

A party cannot:

• Rely on favourable portions
• Reject unfavourable portions

Leading Case: Rajagopal Ayyangar v. Ramanuja Ayyangar

Facts (Simplified)

• Plaintiff sued on the basis of entries in his account books
• Defendants summoned those account books under this provision
• Defendants inspected the books and found relevant entries
• Defendants sought to cross-examine the plaintiff on genuineness
• Plaintiff objected

Held

The court held:

• Plaintiff had no right to object
• The mere production of the document does not mean its contents are true
• Cross-examination is necessary to test genuineness

👉 The document becomes evidence only when produced before the court, and:

• The court decides relevancy and admissibility
• The burden of proof lies on the party asserting its truth

Key Legal Principles Emanating from Section 166

• A party calling for a document:
  • Cannot inspect and then suppress it


• Truth of the document:
  • Can be challenged
  • Can be disproved by cross-examination


• Court retains control over:
  • Admission
  • Proof
  • Evaluation of evidence

Critical Analysis

Strengths

1. Prevents selective and unfair use of documents
2. Encourages procedural fairness
3. Discourages fishing expeditions
4. Maintains integrity of evidence
5. Promotes transparency in trials

Limitations

1. May operate harshly if inspection reveals unexpected prejudice
2. Depends on proper judicial supervision
3. Does not dispense with need for proof, causing delay

10 Illustrative Case Scenarios

1. Party inspects contract and must produce it
2. Inspection reveals unfavourable clause – cannot suppress
3. Producing party insists on admission – court allows
4. Document already on record – Section 166 inapplicable
5. Cross-examination allowed on genuineness
6. Document read as a whole
7. Partial reliance rejected by court
8. Burden of proof examined independently
9. Fair trial ensured by transparency
10. Tactical misuse prevented

Conclusion

Section 166 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 embodies the principle that a party who calls for and inspects a document must accept the legal consequences of that inspection. If the producing party so demands, the document must be given in evidence.


At the same time, the section carefully preserves judicial scrutiny by requiring that the document’s relevancy, admissibility, and truth be independently examined. By discouraging selective reliance and ensuring openness, Section 166 strengthens fairness and integrity in judicial proceedings.