​Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 –
Indecent and Scandalous Questions (Section 154)

Case Scenario
​During the cross-examination of a witness in a criminal trial, the defence counsel begins asking questions about the witness’s private life and past conduct which are embarrassing and offensive. The prosecution objects, arguing that such questions are indecent and unnecessary. The defence replies that these questions have some connection with the case. The judge must now decide whether such questioning should be permitted.
This situation is governed by Section 154 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

Meaning of Indecent and Scandalous Questions

• Indecent questions are those which offend modesty, morality, or propriety.
• Scandalous questions are those which disgrace or defame a person by imputing immoral, improper, or disgraceful conduct.

Such questions are generally considered harmful because they:

• Humiliate witnesses
• Distract the court from the real issues
• Turn trials into inquiries into personal character rather than facts in issue

Section 154 – Statutory Provision (Explained Simply)Section 154 provides that:

• The Court may forbid any question or inquiry which it considers indecent or scandalous,
• Even though such question or inquiry may have some bearing on the questions before the court.

Important ExceptionHowever, the court cannot forbid such questions if:

• They relate directly to a fact in issue, or
• They are necessary to determine whether the facts in issue existed or not.

Thus, relevance to the core issue can justify even indecent or scandalous questions.

Object of Section 154The object of Section 154 is to:

• Protect witnesses from unnecessary humiliation
• Maintain dignity and decorum of judicial proceedings
• Prevent abuse of cross-examination

At the same time, it balances this protection with the need for:

• Full disclosure of relevant facts
• Fair determination of truth

Scope of Section 154When the Court May Forbid Questions

• When questions are:
  • Indecent or scandalous, and
  • Not directly connected with facts in issue
  • Asked merely to harass or embarrass the witness

When the Court Must Allow Questions

• When such questions:
  • Directly relate to facts in issue, or
  • Are essential to decide whether facts in issue existed

In such cases, relevance overrides indecency.

Judicial Discretion under Section 154

• The power under Section 154 is discretionary
• The judge must carefully assess:
  • Relevance of the question
  • Necessity of asking it
  • Manner in which it is framed

The judge may:

• Allow the question
• Modify its form
• Forbid it entirely

Distinction Between Section 154 and Section 155

• Section 154:
  • Deals with indecent or scandalous questions
  • Focuses on content of the question
• Section 155:
  • Deals with questions intended to insult or annoy
  • Focuses on intention and form

Both provisions work together to control improper questioning.

Illustrative Examples

1. Question about a witness’s immoral conduct unrelated to case – forbidden
2. Question about sexual conduct not in issue – forbidden
3. Question about relationship directly proving motive – allowed
4. Scandalous question framed offensively – rephrased by court
5. Embarrassing question essential to prove alibi – allowed

Critical AnalysisStrengths

1. Protects witnesses from character assassination
2. Maintains dignity of court proceedings
3. Prevents misuse of cross-examination
4. Encourages witnesses to testify fearlessly
5. Balances fairness with truth-finding

Limitations

1. Depends heavily on judicial discretion
2. Risk of inconsistent application
3. Difficult to balance relevance and decency in sensitive cases

10 Illustrative Case Scenarios

1. Indecent questions about private life barred
2. Scandalous allegations without relevance rejected
3. Relevant but embarrassing questions allowed
4. Defence restrained from harassment
5. Judge modifies offensive language
6. Witness dignity protected
7. Truth not sacrificed for decency
8. Proper balance maintained
9. Abuse of questioning prevented
10. Fair trial ensured

ConclusionSection 154 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 lays down an important safeguard against the use of indecent and scandalous questions during examination of witnesses. While it empowers courts to forbid such questions to protect dignity and decorum, it also recognizes that relevance to facts in issue may justify their admission.
By striking a balance between fair trial rights and humane treatment of witnesses, Section 154 ensures that the pursuit of justice does not degenerate into personal humiliation or scandal-mongering.

​Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 –
Procedure of Court in Case of Questions Asked without Reasonable Grounds (Section 153)

Case Scenario (Beginning as Required)During cross-examination in a civil suit, an advocate asks a witness an allegation-laden question suggesting immoral and criminal conduct, even though the matter has no connection with the issues before the court. The witness objects, stating that the question is defamatory and baseless. The court, after considering the circumstances, forms the opinion that the question was asked without any reasonable ground and was meant only to harass the witness. The court is then requested to take action against the advocate.
This situation is governed by Section 153 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

Purpose of Section 153Section 153 is intended to:

• Prevent reckless, defamatory, and irresponsible cross-examination
• Protect witnesses from unfounded allegations
• Ensure professional discipline among advocates
• Preserve the dignity of court proceedings

It acts as a check on misuse of cross-examination as a tool of harassment.

Section 153 – Statutory Provision (Explained Simply)Section 153 provides that:

• Where a question:
  • Relates to a matter not relevant to the suit or proceeding, and
  • Is asked without reasonable grounds, and
• The court is requested by any advocate to report the circumstances,

👉 The court may report the matter to:

• The High Court, or
• Any other competent authority to which the advocate is professionally answerable.

Thus, the provision empowers the court to initiate disciplinary oversight.

Key Elements of Section 153 (Note Form)For Section 153 to apply, the following conditions must be satisfied:

1. Question not relevant to the proceeding
2. Lack of reasonable grounds for asking the question
3. Question likely to be:
   • Defamatory, or
   • Harassing, or
   • Reckless in nature
4. Court forms an opinion regarding the impropriety
5. Court is requested to report the matter

Only then may the court take action under this provision.

Changes Introduced under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

• The old terms:
  • Barrister
  • Pleader
  • Attorney
  • Vakil

have been replaced by the single, modern term “Advocate”.
This change:

• Reflects contemporary legal practice in India
• Brings uniformity and clarity in terminology

Liability of Advocate for Asking Defamatory QuestionsSection 153 imposes professional accountability on advocates.
When Liability Arises

• Advocate asks a defamatory or scandalous question
• No reasonable ground exists to believe the allegation is true
• Question is unrelated to facts in issue

Possible Consequences

• Court may report the advocate to:
  • High Court, or
  • Bar Council, or
  • Other disciplinary authority

This may lead to:

• Disciplinary inquiry
• Professional sanctions

Meaning of “Without Reasonable Grounds”

• Advocate must have:
  • Some factual basis, or
  • Reasonable belief

Mere suspicion, rumour, or strategy is not sufficient.
Cross-examination must be:

• Responsible
• Relevant
• Professionally justified

Relationship with Other Provisions

• Section 153 → Disciplinary control over advocates
• Section 154 → Indecent and scandalous questions
• Section 155 → Questions intended to insult or annoy

Together, these sections ensure:

• Witness protection
• Courtroom discipline
• Ethical advocacy

Judicial Duty under Section 153The court must:

• Act as a guardian of fairness
• Prevent character assassination
• Ensure advocates do not misuse privilege of cross-examination

However:

• Reporting is discretionary, not mandatory
• The court must act judiciously and fairly

Critical AnalysisStrengths

1. Discourages reckless and defamatory questioning
2. Protects witnesses from unnecessary humiliation
3. Maintains dignity of judicial proceedings
4. Reinforces ethical standards of advocacy
5. Strengthens public confidence in courts

Limitations

1. Rarely invoked due to judicial restraint
2. Depends on subjective judicial opinion
3. Fear of discouraging robust cross-examination

10 Illustrative Case Scenarios

1. Advocate alleges adultery without basis – reported
2. Irrelevant criminal allegation against witness – reported
3. Question asked on hearsay – disciplinary action considered
4. Baseless accusation of bribery – court intervenes
5. Reasonable factual basis exists – no report
6. Harassing question withdrawn – warning issued
7. Repeated reckless questioning – reported
8. Witness dignity protected
9. Ethical standards enforced
10. Fair trial preserved

ConclusionSection 153 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 serves as an important safeguard against irresponsible and defamatory questioning in court. While cross-examination is a vital tool for discovering truth, it cannot be permitted to degenerate into character assassination or harassment without reasonable grounds.
By empowering courts to report advocates who abuse this privilege, Section 153 upholds professional accountability, witness protection, and the dignity of judicial proceedings, ensuring that justice is pursued with fairness, responsibility, and ethical restraint.

​Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 –
Question Not to Be Asked without Reasonable Grounds (Section 152)

Case Scenario
During cross-examination, an advocate suddenly asks a witness, “Are you a dacoit?” without placing any prior facts or circumstances on record. The witness objects, stating that the question is defamatory and baseless. The court must decide whether such a question is permissible and what safeguards exist to prevent reckless allegations against witnesses.
This situation is governed by Section 152 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

Purpose of Section 152
Section 152 is designed to:

• Prevent reckless, defamatory, and irresponsible questioning
• Protect witnesses from baseless imputations
• Ensure fairness and dignity in cross-examination
• Impose professional responsibility on advocates

The section ensures that cross-examination does not become a tool of character assassination.

Section 152 – Statutory Rule
Section 152 provides that:
No question referred to in Section 151 (i.e., questions intended to injure the character of a witness) shall be asked,
unless the person asking it has reasonable grounds for believing that the imputation conveyed by the question is well-founded.
Thus:

• Questions containing allegations or imputations are permitted only when supported by reasonable grounds.

Meaning of “Reasonable Grounds”
"Reasonable grounds” means:

• There must be some factual basis
• A reasonable belief based on:
  • Instructions from a reliable source
  • Prior information
  • Answers already given by the witness

Mere suspicion, guesswork, or strategy is not sufficient.

Illustrations Explained (From the Section)
​Illustration (a)

• Advocate is instructed by another advocate that a witness is a dacoit
• This constitutes reasonable grounds
  ✔ Question permissible

Illustration (b)

• Advocate is informed in court that a witness is a dacoit
• Informant gives satisfactory reasons
  ✔ Question permissible

Illustration (c)

• Witness about whom nothing is known is randomly asked if he is a dacoit
  ❌ No reasonable grounds
  ❌ Question impermissible

Illustration (d)

• Witness questioned about livelihood
• Gives unsatisfactory answers
  ✔ Reasonable grounds arise
  ✔ Question permissible

Scope of Section 152

• Applies to questions carrying imputations
• Covers questions intended to:
  • Injure character
  • Discredit moral standing
  • Suggest criminal conduct

The section requires:

• Advocate accountability
• Judicial oversight

Court’s Role under Section 152If the court finds that:

• A question was asked without reasonable grounds,

Then:

• The court may:
  • Warn the advocate
  • Stop further questioning
  • Refer the matter to the High Court or other competent authority for disciplinary action

This provision works in harmony with Section 153.

Relationship with Other Sections

• Section 151 → Questions injuring character
• Section 152 → Reasonable grounds required for such questions
• Section 153 → Procedure and disciplinary consequences
• Sections 154–155 → Court’s power to forbid indecent or insulting questions

Together, these provisions ensure ethical and responsible cross-examination.

Why This Safeguard Is Necessary

• Witnesses are often ordinary citizens
• Unfounded allegations may:
  • Damage reputation
  • Discourage truthful testimony
  • Undermine public confidence in courts

Section 152 balances:

• Advocate’s right to test credibility, and
• Witness’s right to dignity and protection

Critical AnalysisStrengths

1. Prevents arbitrary character attacks
2. Promotes ethical advocacy
3. Protects witnesses from humiliation
4. Ensures relevance and fairness
5. Maintains courtroom decorum

Limitations

1. Depends on judicial discretion
2. “Reasonable grounds” may be subjective
3. Risk of discouraging rigorous cross-examination if misapplied

10 Illustrative Case Scenarios

1. Baseless allegation of theft – barred
2. Question backed by prior record – allowed
3. Random criminal accusation – disallowed
4. Unsatisfactory livelihood explanation – follow-up allowed
5. Court warns advocate
6. Disciplinary action initiated
7. Witness dignity preserved
8. Advocate acts responsibly
9. Cross-examination remains fair
10. Trial integrity maintained

ConclusionSection 152 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 establishes an essential safeguard against irresponsible and defamatory questioning. It mandates that any question carrying an imputation against a witness must be supported by reasonable grounds.
By imposing this requirement, the law ensures that cross-examination remains a truth-seeking exercise, not an instrument of humiliation or speculation. When read with Sections 151 and 153, Section 152 upholds professional accountability, witness dignity, and the integrity of judicial proceedings.

Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 –
Court to Decide When a Question Shall Be Asked and When a Witness Is Compelled to Answer (Section 151)

Case Scenario (Beginning as Required)In a murder trial, an eyewitness is cross-examined by the defence. The defence counsel asks a question suggesting that the witness was once associated with a criminal gang. The prosecution objects, arguing that the question is irrelevant and intended only to damage the witness’s character. The court must now decide whether the question should be allowed and whether the witness can be compelled to answer it.
This situation is governed by Section 151 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

Purpose of Section 151Section 151 entrusts the court with the delicate responsibility of controlling questioning of witnesses, especially where:

• The question does not relate to facts in issue, and
• Is intended only to shake the credit of the witness by injuring his character

The section ensures that:

• Only relevant and necessary questions are compelled
• Witnesses are protected from unnecessary character attacks
• Judicial proceedings remain fair and focused on truth

Section 151(1) – Statutory Rule (Explained Simply)Section 151(1) provides that:

• When a question:
  • Relates to a matter not relevant to the suit or proceeding, and
  • Affects the credit of the witness by injuring his character,

👉 The Court shall decide:

• Whether the witness should be compelled to answer, or
• Whether the witness may refuse to answer

The Court may also:

• Warn the witness that he is not obliged to answer such a question.

Thus, in such cases, the decision rests entirely on the judicial discretion of the court.

Section 151(2) – Considerations Guiding the Court’s DiscretionWhile exercising discretion, the Court must consider the following factors:

(a) Proper QuestionsA question is proper if:

• The truth of the imputation conveyed by it
• Would seriously affect the Court’s opinion about the credibility of the witness
• On the matter to which he is testifying

📌 Example:
If a witness is alleged to have been a member of the accused’s gang earlier, and this fact, if true, would seriously affect his credibility, the question is proper.

(b) Improper Questions Due to Remoteness or CharacterA question is improper if:

• The imputation relates to matters too remote in time, or
• Is of such a character that:
  • Even if true, it would not materially affect the credibility of the witness

📌 Example:
Asking a witness about a 30-year-old conviction when he appears only as a surety is improper.

(c) Disproportion Between Imputation and EvidenceA question is improper if:

• There is a great disproportion between:
  • The seriousness of the imputation, and
  • The importance of the evidence given by the witness

📌 Example:
A witness testifying only about a date of birth cannot be asked whether he belonged to a gang of dacoits. The imputation is far too serious compared to the importance of his testimony.

(d) Inference from Refusal to AnswerIf:

• The Court allows a proper question, and
• The witness refuses to answer it,

👉 The Court may draw an inference that:

• The answer, if given, would have been unfavourable to the witness.

This inference is discretionary, not mandatory.

Scope of Section 151

• When character is directly relevant to the issue:
  • The witness must answer
• When character is relevant only to shake credibility:
  • The Court decides whether the question should be answered

Thus, Section 151 places the court in the role of a gatekeeper.

Discretion of the Court in Questions Affecting Credit (Note Form)In deciding whether to compel an answer, the court considers:

1. Seriousness of the imputation
2. Relevance to credibility
3. Remoteness in time
4. Proportionality between accusation and testimony
5. Overall fairness of the trial

Illustrative Examples ExplainedImproper Question

• Asking an eyewitness whether he is cruel to his wife
  ✔ Even if true, it does not affect his credibility as an eyewitness

Proper Question

• Asking whether the witness was once part of the accused’s gang
  ✔ If true, it seriously affects credibility

Relationship with Other Sections

• Section 151 → Court decides whether to compel answers
• Section 152 → Requires reasonable grounds for imputations
• Section 153 → Procedure if questions are asked without reasonable grounds
• Sections 154–155 → Court’s power to forbid indecent or insulting questions

Together, these provisions ensure balanced and ethical examination of witnesses.

Critical AnalysisStrengths

1. Protects witnesses from unfair character attacks
2. Ensures relevance and proportionality
3. Empowers judges to control proceedings
4. Maintains focus on facts in issue
5. Promotes fairness and dignity

Limitations

1. Heavy reliance on judicial discretion
2. Risk of inconsistent application
3. Difficulty in balancing truth-finding with witness protection

10 Illustrative Case Scenarios

1. Proper question affecting credibility allowed
2. Remote character allegation disallowed
3. Disproportionate imputation rejected
4. Witness warned he need not answer
5. Refusal leads to adverse inference
6. Serious credibility issue explored
7. Minor issue protected
8. Judicial discretion exercised fairly
9. Witness dignity preserved
10. Truth-finding balanced with fairness

ConclusionSection 151 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 vests courts with the crucial responsibility of deciding when a question should be asked and when a witness should be compelled to answer. By laying down clear guiding principles—seriousness, relevance, remoteness, and proportionality—the section ensures that examination of witnesses serves the ends of justice without degenerating into character assassination.
Ultimately, Section 151 strikes a careful balance between discovering the truth and protecting the dignity of witnesses, reinforcing the court’s role as the guardian of fair trial.

​Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 –
When a Witness Is to Be Compelled to Answer (Section 150)

Case Scenario
In a criminal trial, a witness is cross-examined on a question directly connected with the facts in issue. The witness refuses to answer on the ground that the reply may incriminate him. The court must decide whether the witness can claim protection or whether he is legally bound to answer.
This situation is governed by Section 150 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

Purpose of Section 150
Section 150 explains when a witness must be compelled to answer a question. It applies where:

• The question relates to a matter relevant to the suit or proceeding, and
• The witness attempts to avoid answering, often on the ground of self-incrimination

The provision prioritizes disclosure of relevant facts over personal inconvenience to the witness.

Section 150 – Statutory Rule 
Section 150 provides that:

• If a question relates to a matter relevant to the suit or proceeding,
• Then the provisions of Section 137 shall apply.

Effect of Applying Section 137

• A witness cannot refuse to answer a relevant question
• Merely because the answer:
  • May incriminate him, or
  • May expose him to a penalty or forfeiture

Thus, relevance triggers compulsion to answer.

Meaning of the Word “Such” in Section 150
The word “such” refers to:

• Questions mentioned in the preceding section, especially those relating to character

Therefore:

• If a question about a witness’s character is directly relevant to the case,
• The witness must answer, even if it is incriminating.

Scope of Section 150

• Applies only to relevant questions
• Covers:
  • Facts in issue
  • Relevant facts, including character when directly in issue
• Overrides the general privilege against self-incrimination for witnesses

Distinction Between Section 150 and Section 151
Section 150 vs Section 151

• Nature of Question
  • Section 150: Question relates to a relevant fact or fact in issue
  • Section 151: Question relates to a matter not relevant, affecting only credibility
• Witness Obligation
  • Section 150: Witness must answer
  • Section 151: Witness may or may not answer, depending on court’s discretion
• Self-Incrimination
  • Section 150: No excuse to refuse answering
  • Section 151: Witness may be warned that he is not obliged to answer
• Judicial Discretion
  • Section 150: Limited—relevance compels answer
  • Section 151: Wide—court decides propriety and compulsion
• Purpose
  • Section 150: Truth-finding on material facts
  • Section 151: Protection of witness from unnecessary character attacks

Illustrative Examples

1. Witness questioned on fact forming basis of suit – must answer
2. Witness asked about criminal act directly in issue – must answer
3. Witness refuses citing self-incrimination – refusal rejected
4. Character directly relevant – compulsion applies
5. Question affects only credibility – Section 151 applies instead

Rationale Behind Section 150

• Courts must ascertain truth of relevant facts
• Allowing refusal would:
  • Obstruct justice
  • Conceal material evidence

The law balances this by:

• Allowing compulsion only when relevance is clear

Critical AnalysisStrengths

1. Ensures disclosure of material facts
2. Prevents witnesses from shielding truth
3. Strengthens adjudicatory process
4. Clarifies limits of witness privilege
5. Enhances efficiency of trials

Limitations

1. May cause hardship to witnesses
2. Requires careful determination of relevance
3. Depends on judicial vigilance

10 Illustrative Case Scenarios

1. Relevant fact compels answer
2. Character in issue – answer mandatory
3. Witness fears prosecution – still compelled
4. Court enforces Section 137
5. Self-incrimination defence rejected
6. Truth uncovered
7. Section 151 not applicable
8. Witness warned incorrectly – corrected
9. Fair trial maintained
10. Justice achieved

Conclusion
​Section 150 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 lays down a clear and strict rule: when a question relates to a matter relevant to the suit or proceeding, the witness must answer it, even if the answer is self-incriminating.
By contrast, Section 151 applies where questions affect only the credibility of the witness, leaving discretion with the court. Together, these sections strike a careful balance between truth-seeking and witness protection, reinforcing the court’s central role in ensuring a fair and effective trial.

​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.

Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 –
Cross-Examination as to Previous Statements in Writing (Section 148)

Full Meaning of BNSS
BNSS stands for Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
It is the principal criminal procedural law of India, which has replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The BNSS governs investigation, recording of statements, inquiry, trial, and other procedural aspects of criminal justice. Provisions relating to police statements and Magistrate-recorded statements under BNSS directly interact with the rules of evidence under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.

Case Scenario
In a criminal trial, a prosecution witness states before the court that he clearly saw the accused committing the offence. However, during the investigation stage, he had earlier given a written statement to the police narrating a materially different version. The defence seeks to confront the witness with his earlier written statement to expose the inconsistency. The court must decide how a witness may lawfully be contradicted using his previous written statement.
This situation is governed by Section 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

Purpose of Section 148
Section 148 lays down the mandatory procedure for cross-examination of a witness with reference to his previous statements in writing. Its object is to ensure that:

• A witness is treated fairly
• Contradictions are not sprung by surprise
• The witness gets an opportunity to explain the inconsistency

The provision balances effective cross-examination with procedural justice.

Section 148 – Statutory Rule
Section 148 provides:

1. A witness may be cross-examined regarding:
   • Any previous statement made by him in writing, or
   • Any statement reduced into writing,
   • If such statement is relevant to matters in question,
    without showing the document to him or proving it at that stage.
2. However, if it is intended to contradict the witness by that writing:
   • His attention must first be drawn to those specific parts of the writing
   • Only thereafter can the writing be proved for contradiction

Failure to follow this procedure makes the contradiction legally ineffective.

Two Limbs of Section 148 (Note Form)First Limb – Cross-Examination Without Contradiction

• Witness may be questioned about earlier written statements
• Writing need not be shown or proved
• Purpose:
  • To test consistency
  • To obtain explanation
• Does not amount to formal contradiction

Second Limb – Cross-Examination by Contradiction

• Applies when the witness:
  • Denies the earlier statement, or
  • Gives an inconsistent explanation
• Mandatory requirement:
  • Witness’s attention must be drawn to the exact portion relied upon
• Only then:
  • The document may be proved
  • Legal contradiction is established

Scope of Section 148

• Applies only when the same person has made:
  • Two inconsistent statements
• Does not apply when:
  • One witness contradicts another
• The contradiction must arise from:
  • The witness’s own previous statement

What Amounts to “Contradiction”Judicial TestIn Tahsildar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court held:

• A contradiction exists when:
  • The earlier statement and the later testimony are so inconsistent
  • That both cannot logically co-exist
• If one is true, the other must be false

Omissions as Contradictions

• Material omissions may amount to contradictions
• Minor or insignificant omissions do not

Illustrative Example

• Statement 1: “I saw A shoot B with a gun.”
• Statement 2: “I saw C stab B.”

 These statements are mutually destructive and constitute a contradiction.

Previous Statements in Writing – What Is Included (Note Form)The following have been recognised as “previous statements” under Section 148:

1. Statements made to police under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)
2. First Information Report (FIR) authored by the witness
3. Statements recorded in panchnama
4. Cross-complaint (usable only if the maker testifies)
5. Dying declaration recorded by a doctor (if the maker survives)
6. Statements partially recorded or recorded in memorandum form
7. Gist of statements noted by investigating officers
8. Letters, account books, deeds, affidavits, petitions, depositions
9. Statements in complaint petitions or inquiry proceedings

Statements Made to Police – Special Position under BNSS
Statements recorded by police during investigation under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023:

• Are not substantive evidence
• Can be used only for contradiction

Procedure

• Such statements may be used:
  • Only by following Section 148
• They cannot be used for:
  • General cross-examination under the first limb

Only the second limb (contradiction procedure) is permissible.

Important Case IllustrationVishwanathan v. State

• Prosecutrix named the accused in FIR
• Failed to identify him in court
• FIR was held:
  • Not substantive evidence
  • Usable only to contradict the maker under Section 148

Importance of Section 148

• Prevents unfair surprise to witnesses
• Ensures orderly and fair contradiction
• Preserves credibility of trial process
• Harmonises evidence law with BNSS procedures

Critical AnalysisStrengths

1. Provides a clear and mandatory procedure
2. Protects witnesses from ambush
3. Strengthens credibility testing
4. Ensures fairness in criminal trials
5. Integrates evidence law with criminal procedure

Limitations

1. Procedural non-compliance may defeat contradiction
2. Technical in nature
3. Requires careful judicial oversight

10 Illustrative Case Scenarios

1. Police statement contradicts court testimony
2. FIR used to contradict informant
3. Witness denies prior statement – attention drawn
4. Proper contradiction established
5. Omission treated as contradiction
6. Gist recorded by officer relied upon
7. Doctor-recorded dying declaration confronted
8. Panchnama statement used
9. Failure to draw attention – contradiction fails
10. Fair trial ensured through compliance

ConclusionSection 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 lays down a strict and mandatory procedure for contradicting a witness with his previous written statements. While it permits flexible cross-examination at the initial stage, it insists on prior confrontation before a contradiction can be legally proved.
By clearly regulating the use of police statements recorded under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the provision ensures that contradiction remains a tool for discovering truth—not a weapon of unfair surprise—thereby strengthening the fairness and integrity of judicial proceedings.

Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 –
Evidence as to Matters in Writing (Section 147)

Case Scenario
​In a civil dispute concerning ownership of land, a witness begins to give oral evidence about the terms of a property grant. During examination, he admits that the grant was contained in a written document. The opposing party immediately objects and insists that the document itself must be produced before any oral evidence about its contents can be accepted. The court must decide whether such an objection is valid and how evidence relating to written documents should be handled.
This situation is governed by Section 147 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

Section 147 – Statutory Rule
Section 147 deals with evidence relating to matters that are reduced into writing. It provides that:

• When a witness is giving evidence about a contract, grant, or other disposition of property, and
• He is asked whether such transaction was contained in a document, and he admits that it was, or
• He is about to give oral evidence of the contents of a document which, in the opinion of the court, ought to be produced,

 Then the adverse party may object to such oral evidence being given:

• Until the original document is produced, or
• Until it is proved that the party is entitled to give secondary evidence of that document.

Explanation to Section 147A witness may give oral evidence of statements made by other persons about the contents of documents if such statements are themselves relevant facts.
Illustrative Example (Explained)

• Issue: Whether A assaulted B
• Witness C states that he heard A say to D:
  “B wrote a letter accusing me of theft, and I will be revenged on him.”

Even if the letter itself is not produced:

• The statement is admissible
• Because it shows motive for the assault

Thus, the statement is relevant not to prove the contents of the letter, but to prove A’s motive.

Scope of Section 147
Section 147 does not create a new rule of evidence. It:

• Merely explains the procedure by which the rule excluding oral evidence in favour of documentary evidence is enforced
• Operates in harmony with Sections 94 and 95 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which embody the best evidence rule

In essence, it provides a procedural safeguard to ensure documentary evidence is not bypassed by oral testimony.

Evidence as to Matters in Writing – Practical Operation

• If a witness admits that a transaction was:
  • Reduced into writing, or
  • Contained in a document,

👉 Oral evidence about that transaction cannot be allowed unless:

• The original document is produced, or
• Legal grounds for secondary evidence are established

Similarly:

• If a witness is about to depose about the contents of a document,
• The opposing party may object until proper documentary proof is laid.

Right of the Adverse PartyThe adverse party has the right to:

• Insist on production of the best evidence, i.e., the document itself
• Prevent substitution of oral evidence where documentary evidence exists

This right ensures:

• Accuracy
• Reliability
• Protection against fabrication

Exception: When Oral Evidence Is Still PermissibleOral evidence relating to documents may still be allowed when:

• The statement is independently relevant, such as:
  • Showing motive
  • Showing intention
  • Explaining conduct

In such cases, the document is incidental, not the primary fact to be proved.

Judicial Principle on Waiver of ObjectionIt is a settled rule that:

• If a document is admitted in evidence without objection,
• The opposite party cannot later challenge:
  • Mode of proof, or
  • Non-production of the original,
• At the appellate stage.

Case Law: Daya Shanker v. BachiFacts (Briefly)

• A document carried an endorsement that:
  • Parties agreed to dispense with formal proof

Held

• The court held that:
  • Mere production of the document was sufficient proof
  • Its execution and contents stood established

👉 Once parties waive objection, the court need not insist on formal proof.

Relationship with the Best Evidence Rule
Section 147 reinforces the principle that:

• Documentary evidence prevails over oral evidence
• When the law requires a document to exist, its contents must be proved by:
  • The document itself, or
  • Permissible secondary evidence

Critical AnalysisStrengths

1. Upholds the best evidence rule
2. Prevents substitution of oral testimony for written proof
3. Protects against fraud and fabrication
4. Ensures procedural fairness
5. Provides clarity on objections during trial

Limitations

1. Requires timely objection by the adverse party
2. May delay proceedings if documents are unavailable
3. Depends on judicial discretion in applying exceptions

10 Illustrative Case Scenarios

1. Witness admits contract was written – document demanded
2. Oral terms rejected until document produced
3. Secondary evidence allowed after proof of loss
4. Motive proved through oral statement despite missing letter
5. Document admitted without objection – challenge barred
6. Property grant proved only through deed
7. Court disallows oral evidence of written will
8. Statement showing intention admitted
9. Procedural objection upheld
10. Best evidence principle enforced

Conclusion
Section 147 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 regulates how evidence relating to written matters is introduced in court. By allowing the adverse party to object to oral evidence where a document exists, the section reinforces the best evidence rule and ensures accuracy and reliability in judicial findings.
At the same time, by permitting oral evidence of statements that are independently relevant (such as motive or intention), the provision maintains flexibility and practicality. Overall, Section 147 strikes a careful balance between procedural rigor and substantive justice.

Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 –
Evidence as to Matters in Writing (Section 147)

Introduction and Basic Classification of Evidence
Under Indian evidence law, evidence presented before a court is broadly classified into the following categories:

1. Oral Evidence
   – Statements made by witnesses before the court.
2. Documentary Evidence
   – Documents produced and proved before the court.
3. Electronic Evidence (E-evidence)
   – Electronic records such as emails, digital files, CCTV footage, call records, and in criminal cases, even evidence recorded through video-conferencing.

Further, oral and documentary evidence can be divided into two sub-categories:

• (a) Direct (Primary) Evidence
• (b) Indirect (Secondary / Hearsay / Circumstantial) Evidence

Understanding this distinction is essential to appreciate the scope and object of Section 147.

Direct (Primary) Evidence
Direct evidence is evidence that proves a fact immediately and without inference.

• It establishes the truth of a fact straightforwardly.
• No reasoning, deduction, or linking of facts is required.

Characteristics:

• Clear and tangible
• Proves a fact directly
• Requires no intervening inference

Examples:

• An eyewitness testifying that he saw the accused strike the victim.
• Production of an original written contract to prove its terms.

Direct evidence is considered the best form of proof.

Indirect (Secondary / Circumstantial) Evidence
Indirect evidence proves a fact through other connected facts.

• The court must draw inferences by connecting a chain of circumstances.
• Each fact must have a logical cause-and-effect relationship with the fact in issue.

Characteristics:

• Based on inference and deduction
• Requires reasoning
• Often called circumstantial evidence

Example:

• Proving guilt based on motive, last-seen evidence, recovery of weapon, and conduct of the accused.

Section 147 – Evidence as to Matters in Writing
Statutory Principle
Section 147 deals with situations where a fact, transaction, or disposition is reduced into writing.
It provides that:

• When a witness is giving evidence about a contract, grant, or disposition of property, and
• He admits that such transaction was contained in a document, or
• He is about to give oral evidence of the contents of a document,

👉 The adverse party has the right to object to such oral evidence:

• Until the original document is produced, or
• Until the party calling the witness proves that he is legally entitled to give secondary evidence of that document.

Object of Section 147The object of Section 147 is to:

• Enforce the best evidence rule
• Prevent substitution of oral testimony for documentary proof
• Ensure accuracy and reliability in judicial findings

In essence:
When a matter is in writing, the writing itself is the best evidence of its contents.

Practical Operation of Section 147

• If a witness admits that a transaction was written:
  • Oral evidence about its terms is not admissible unless the document is produced.
• If a witness starts narrating the contents of a document:
  • The opposite party may insist on production of the document.

This protects the court from:

• Fabrication
• Inaccurate recollection
• Manipulation of evidence

Explanation to Section 147 – Important ExceptionA witness may give oral evidence of statements made by others about the contents of a document if those statements are themselves relevant facts.
Illustration Explained

• Issue: Whether A assaulted B
• Witness says:
  “I heard A say that B wrote a letter accusing him of theft and that he would take revenge.”

Even if:

• The letter is not produced
• The oral statement is admissible because:
• It proves motive, not the contents of the letter itself.

Thus, the document is incidental, not the fact in issue.

Scope of Section 147
Section 147 does not create a new rule of evidence. It only:

• Provides the procedural mechanism to enforce Sections 94 and 95 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which embody the rule that:
  • Documentary evidence excludes oral evidence when the law requires a document.

Objection by the Adverse PartyThe adverse party may object:

• At the time the oral evidence is sought to be given

Important RuleIf no objection is raised at trial:

• The mode of proof cannot be challenged later in appeal.

Judicial PrecedentDaya Shanker v. Bachi

• Parties agreed to dispense with formal proof of a document.
• The document was produced without objection.

Held:

• Mere production was sufficient proof of execution and contents.
• Later objection to the mode of proof was not allowed.

Relationship with Direct and Indirect Evidence

• Section 147 reinforces preference for direct documentary evidence over indirect oral evidence.
• Oral evidence is allowed only:
  • When the document is unavailable and secondary evidence is justified, or
  • When oral evidence is independently relevant (e.g., motive, intention).

Critical Analysis
​Strengths

1. Upholds the best evidence rule
2. Prevents distortion of written terms
3. Enhances certainty and reliability
4. Protects parties from fabricated testimony
5. Encourages proper documentation

Limitations

1. Requires timely objection
2. May cause delay if documents are unavailable
3. Depends on judicial discretion in applying exceptions

ConclusionSection 147 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 governs how courts deal with evidence relating to matters reduced into writing. By insisting on production of documents where they exist, the section reinforces the principle that written evidence prevails over oral testimony.
At the same time, it maintains flexibility by allowing oral evidence where the statement itself is independently relevant. Thus, Section 147 strikes a careful balance between procedural rigor and substantive justice, ensuring that courts rely on the most reliable form of evidence available.

Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 –
Leading Questions (Section 146)

IntroductionThe manner in which questions are framed during examination of witnesses has a direct impact on the fairness of a trial. One important category of questions is leading questions, which are carefully regulated under Section 146 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. This section consolidates and restates the law relating to leading questions, ensuring that evidence is elicited fairly and without undue influence on witnesses.

What Are Leading Questions – Section 146(1)A leading question is:
A question that suggests the answer which the person asking it wishes or expects to receive.
In simple terms, it is a question framed in such a way that it puts words into the mouth of the witness or hints at the desired response.
Illustrative Examples

• “Did you see B hit A with a stick?”
• “You were present at the spot, weren’t you?”

Such questions already assume or suggest facts and guide the witness toward a particular answer.

When Leading Questions Must Not Be Asked – Section 146(2)
Leading questions must not be asked, if objected to by the adverse party, during:

• Examination-in-chief, or
• Re-examination,

👉 Except with the permission of the Court.
Rationale

• Examination-in-chief is meant to bring out the witness’s own version of facts.
• Allowing leading questions at this stage may:
  • Influence the witness
  • Distort the truth
  • Reduce the reliability of testimony

When the Court May Permit Leading Questions – Section 146(3)
The Court shall permit leading questions in respect of matters which are:

1. Introductory
   • Name, age, address, occupation
2. Undisputed
   • Facts admitted by both parties
3. Already Sufficiently Proved
   • Facts established by earlier evidence

Here, leading questions do not prejudice the opposite party and help in saving judicial time.

Leading Questions in Cross-Examination – Section 146(4)
Leading questions may be freely asked in cross-examination.
Reason

• Cross-examination is intended to:
  • Test veracity
  • Expose inconsistencies
  • Challenge credibility

Leading questions are considered an effective and legitimate tool for these purposes.

Changes Introduced Under This Section

• Sections 141, 142, and 143 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 have been merged into Section 146 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
• The substance and wording remain the same, but the law has been streamlined into a single provision for clarity and ease of application.

Meaning and Nature of a Leading Question
A leading question:

• Indicates or suggests the fact sought to be proved
• Guides the witness toward a particular answer
• Is framed to confirm what the examiner already believes to be true

It may suggest the answer:

• Directly (explicit suggestion), or
• Indirectly (by assumption or implication).

When Leading Questions May Be Asked (Exceptions)
Even outside cross-examination, leading questions may be allowed in certain situations:

1. Introductory matters
2. Undisputed facts
3. Matters already sufficiently proved
4. Questions relating to identity of persons or things
5. To contradict another witness as to expressions used
6. To assist the memory of the witness
7. Where the witness lacks understanding
   • Child witness
   • Illiterate witness
   • Aged or infirm witness
   • Witness with defective memory
8. Where the witness is hostile or unwilling
   • Or appears interested in the opposite party

In all such cases, the discretion of the Court is paramount.

No Misleading Questions in Cross-Examination
Although leading questions are permitted in cross-examination, misleading questions are not allowed.
A misleading question:

• Assumes facts not yet proved
• Presumes admissions not made by the witness

Illustration

• Improper: “How long have you been working as the plaintiff’s servant?”
  (Assumes the witness is already a servant)
• Proper: “Are you a servant of the plaintiff?”

Judicial Illustration
Binapani v. Ravindra NathIn a matrimonial dispute where the husband denied allegations of cruelty, the court held that:

• A question like “Have you stopped beating your wife?” was improper
• Because it presumed guilt, even though the allegation was denied

Such a question was held to be misleading and unfair.

Effect of Objection by the Opposite Party

• If the opposite party objects:
  • Leading questions cannot be asked in examination-in-chief or re-examination without court’s permission.
• If the opposite party does not object:
  • Leading questions may be asked, and no prior permission is required.

Critical Analysis
Advantages

1. Protects witnesses from being coached
2. Ensures voluntary and natural testimony
3. Preserves fairness of examination-in-chief
4. Enhances effectiveness of cross-examination

Limitations

1. Depends heavily on judicial discretion
2. Possibility of misuse if objections are not raised
3. Requires active control by the judge

Conclusion
Section 146 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 lays down a balanced and structured framework governing the use of leading questions. While it restricts their use in examination-in-chief and re-examination to prevent manipulation, it freely allows them in cross-examination to test credibility and truthfulness.
By combining clarity, judicial discretion, and procedural safeguards, Section 146 ensures that leading questions serve the cause of justice, not distortion of truth.