AMITY UNIVERSITY GWALIOR, MADHYA

PRADESH, (AUMP)

ASSIGNMENT
OF
EXAMINATION OF WITNESS
COURSE CODE- BAL 730
A61021620005

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

MRS. ANSHU DWIVEDI ANSHIKA JAIN
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR BA.LLB. (H) / VII
SEM
ALS- AUMP ALS- AUMP

1
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Apart from the efforts of our, the success of any project depends largely on
the encouragement and guidelines of many others. We take this
opportunity to express our gratitude to the people who have been
instrumental in the successful completion of this project.

Firstly, we would like to express our gratitude towards Mrs. Anshu

Dwivedi, Assistant Faculty for his vital cooperation and help in ensuring
the successful completion of this assignment. He deserves the utmost credit
for the assignment’s outcome.

Secondly, we would like to thank each other for our inevitable

contributions. And,

Finally, we would want to convey my sincere thanks to my friends and

supporters; without them, the task would not have been accomplished in
such a timely manner.

Signature
Anshika Jain

2
1.Write down the procedure of Examination of witness in the court?

INTRODUCTION
Witness is one who sees, knows or vouches for something or one who gives testimony, under
oath or affirmation in person or by oral or written deposition, or by affidavit. The questioning
of a witness plays a vital role in the presentation of evidence to a court of law, irrespective of
the essence of the case, i.e., whether it is civil or criminal. The admissibility of facts is also a
critical topic determined only by the judicial officers. The testimony of the witness shall be
reported in the form of a question and answer.
Witness is not required to make a speech to the court, but is only intended to address the
issue. The testimony of the witness is limited to the actual facts of the case. Such a method of
recording evidence shall be referred to as the examination of a witness. The examination of
witnesses is an integral part of a criminal trial. Witness testimonies are one of the most
reliable evidence because the person giving the statements has personally witnessed the event
happen. Section 135–165 of the Evidence Act, 1872 deals with examination and cross-
examination of witnesses. This article will cover each section one by one, along with case
laws.
To validate an evidence, it is must to prove that it is a reliable or true evidence bought before
the court, which also applies to the witnesses of the case. According to section 118 of the
Indian evidence act states about competent witness where a person who has the ability and
capability to understand and process the relevant questions put forward to him by the court.
So, in Indian evidence act,1872, there are specifications of sections related to the art of
examination of witnesses.
The art of examination is where witness will be questioned to get the statement or truth which
will be favourable to decide the case. An examination of the witness is done to find the truth
or to check the veracity of the facts said by the witness. In simple words examination of
witness is the process where relevant questions are asked related to the fact in issue to a
witness.
In this paperwork, we will see, how these witnesses are examined, what are the kinds of
examination are used in witnesses, which are specified under section 135 to 165 of the Indian
evidence act,1872.

3
WITNESS PROTECTION SCHEME, 2018
In the Supreme Court of India's landmark judgment, Mahendra Chawla V/s Union of India,
the Supreme Court bench of Justice A.K. Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan, directed the
formation of vulnerable witness deposition complexes in all district courts across the country
in line with the Witness Protection Scheme (WPS) framed by the Centre. The bench further
emphasized that the scheme would hold the field until there was any appropriate legislation to
switch it.

The Supreme Court made this extraordinary intervention on a petition filed by four witnesses
who were threatened for deposing against the self-proclaimed Asaram Babu and his son
Narayana Sai, for the rape of women devotees. Around 10 persons who were witnesses
against the father-son duo were attacked, and of them, three succumbed to death.

According to the Witness Protection Scheme (WPS), the witness protection measures shall
be proportionate to the threat and shall be for a particular duration not exceeding three
months at a time. They may include:

 Ensuring that witness and accused don't come face to face during investigation or
trial;
 Monitoring of mail and telephone calls;
 Arrangement with the phone company to change the witness's telephone number or
assign him or her an unlisted phone number;
 Installation of security devices, like security doors, CCTV, alarms, fencing, etc., at the
witness's home;
 Concealment of identity of the witness by referring to him/her with the changed name
or alphabet;
 Emergency contact persons for the witness;
 Close protection and regular patrolling around the witness's house;
 Temporary change of residence to a relative's house or to a close-by town;
 Escort to and from the court and provision of government vehicle or a state-funded
conveyance on the date of hearing;
 Holding of in-camera trials;
 Allowing a support person to stay during recording of statement and deposition;
 Usage of specially designed vulnerable witness court rooms which have special
arrangements like live video links, one way mirrors and screens other than separate
passages for witnesses and accused, with a choice to modify the image of face of the
witness and to change the audio feed of the witness's voice so that he/she is not
identifiable;
 Ensuring expeditious recording of deposition during trial on a day-to-day basis
without adjournments; and

4
  Awarding periodical financial aids/grants to the witness from time-to-time from the
Witness Protection Fund for the aim of relocation, maintenance or starting a
replacement of profession, if desired. Once an order for the protection of the identity
of a witness is pronounced by the competent authority, it shall be the responsibility of
the Witness Protection Cell to secure the identity of such witness, his or her family
members, including name, parentage, occupation, address etc. The Supreme Court
bench also held that, till the time the identity of any witness is protected under an
order of the competent authority, the Witness Protection Cell shall provide details of
persons who may be contacted by the witness in case of emergency.

The major reason for establishing the vulnerable witness deposition complexes is the
numerous acquittals in criminal cases due to witnesses turning hostile and giving false
testimonies as well as the lack of protection given to them and their families.

RIGHTS OF THE WITNESSES

There should be certain standards of safety that need to be given to the witness by the state
who comes forward to testify and it is the responsibility of the state to provide adequate
protection to the witness. The various Law Commission Reports and the Witness Protection
Scheme have identified certain rights that a witness possesses:

 Right to information of the status of the investigation and prosecution of the crime;
 Right to protection from harm and intimidation;
 Right to secure waiting place while at court proceedings;
 Right to submit evidence without revealing identity;
 Right to occupy a secure place and transportation; and
 Right to be treated compassionately and with dignity and respect for privacy. It is
mandatory for Investigating Officer/Court to inform each and every witness about the
existence of "Witness Protection Scheme" and its features.

ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
Under the Evidence Act, 1872 Section-5 states that evidence is admissible only when it
supports a relevant fact in issue. It is further provided in Section 136 that the judge may ask
the parties if the evidence they have adduced deals with a relevant fact or not. For evidence to
be admissible in Court, the judge must be convinced that the evidence is relevant and does
help establish a relevant fact in issue.

Section 136 of Evidence Act “Judge to decide as to admissibility of evidence”

If any party proposes to offer evidence of some fact, the judge may ask the party proposing to
give the evidence in what way the alleged fact would have been significant if it had been
proven; and the judge shall accept the evidence if he finds that it would have been relevant if
it had been proved, and not otherwise.

If the truth proposed to be proven is one of which evidence is admissible only on the basis of
proof of some other fact, the latter must be identified before the first evidence is presented,
unless the party undertakes to provide proof of that fact and the Court is pleased with that
undertaking.

5
KINDS OF WITNESS EXAMINATION AND THEIR ORDER:
(Section 137 &138 of Indian evidence act). There are three kinds of witness examination
namely, (Section 137 Of Indian Evidence Act)
 Examination In Chief
 Cross - Examination
 Re - Examination

EXPLANATION:-
EXAMINATION OF WITNESS
Examination of a witness is asking the witness questions regarding relevant facts in the case
and recording the statements of witnesses as evidence. There are three parts to the
examination of a witness under Section 137 and Section 138 of the Evidence Act states that
the witness must be examined in the following order:

 First, the party that called the witness examines him, this process is
called examination-in-chief as mentioned under Section-137 of the Indian
Evidence Act.
 After the completion of the examination-in-chief, if the opposite party wants to,
they can take over the witness and cross-question him about his previous answers.
The opposite party may ask him any question regarding all the relevant facts and
not merely the facts discussed during the examination-in-chief. This process has
been described in Section 137 of the act as cross-examination.
 If the party that called the witness sees the need to examine the witness again after
cross-examination, they may examine the witness one more time. This has been
laid down as re-examination in Section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Object of Examination-in-chief

The objective of cross-examination-in-chief is to elicit the facts and to prove pertinent facts in
favor of the party who called the witnesses. The aim of his examination is, in other phrases,
to obtain all facts from the witnesses regarding the cases of the parties he is aware of. It must

6
be limited to the facts concerned, and without the permission of the court, leading questions
cannot be asked.

Object of the Cross-examination

The objective of cross-examination is to determine whether the witness’s statements are true.
It’s an attempt to dissect a witness or show that his testimony can’t be trusted. Cross-main
examination’s purpose was to examine the accuracy, authenticity, and value of the evidence
presented in chief, to shift the facts already stated by the witness, to identify and expose
differences, and to produce suppressed evidence to substantiate the cross-examining party’s
case.

Common goals of cross examination:-

 Elicit favorable testimony supportive of the state’s position and contentions.
 Develop new material favorable to the state.
 Present or re-present the state’s theory of the case.
 Corroborate the state’s own witnesses, and perhaps eliminate the need to call
additional witnesses or to present rebuttal evidence.
 Discredit the defendant’s witness by showing motive, interest, bias, or prejudice.
 Discredit the defendant’s witness’s testimony by challenging the witness’s perception,
memory, or ability to communicate.
 Lay a foundation to impeach other witnesses.

Suggestions for cross examination:

 Be brief.
 Short questions, plain words.
 Always ask leading questions.
 Do not ask a question to which you do not know the answer in advance.
 Listen to the witness’s answers.
 Never quarrel with the witness.
 Don’t allow the witness to repeat his or her direct testimony.
 Don’t permit the witness to explain his or her answers.
 Avoid asking the “one question too many.”
 Save the ultimate point of your cross-examination for summation.

Things to be avoided for cross examination:

 Don’t lose your temper. Hide your emotions if necessary. Never show that you
have been hurt by an answer. Act like you expected to hear it.
 Don’t cross-examine a witness unless the witness has hurt you and there is a fact
which needs to be drawn out or a point to be made. “No questions” is a perfectly
appropriate tactic in many instances.
 Don’t browbeat a witness or be cruel and unfair. Humiliation is not a victory.
 Don’t go fishing. This is not the time for discovery.

7
  Don’t let others at counsel table talk to you while you are cross-examining a
witness. Have them pass you a written note, but only if it is important.
 Don’t weaken a good point made on cross by repeating it. Wait and save it for
final argument. Don’t press the witness with it.
 Don’t use words that witnesses and jurors may find confusing, like “subsequent”
(just say “after”) or “discourse" (just say “conversation”).
 Don’t expound on insignificant things or trifling discrepancies. The jury knows
that human memory is not always exact about time, dates, and amounts.
 Don’t get carried away at the sound of your own voice. Keep it short, and quit
while you are ahead.
 Don’t forget that the jury is keenly aware of the inequity of the experienced
advocate vs. the inexperienced witness who is nervous and in unfamiliar
surroundings.
 Don’t follow the order of the witness’s direct testimony, because the witness will
just repeat everything on cross. The cross should be structured based on topics,
rather than chronology. Jump around (backward, forward, middle) without giving
the witness time or opportunity to make a connected narrative. Change topics:
keep the witness on cross one step behind you, not one step ahead of you.
 Don’t start off on cross where the witness left off on direct.
 Don’t argue with a witness—it just gives the witness the opportunity to argue with
you. Don’t agree with the witness either.
 Don’t be afraid to object, when appropriate, but don’t be objectionable.
 Don’t inadvertently open a door by a line of inquiry that you had not wanted to
open—nor to prove an essential fact in the defendant’s case that had not yet
admitted into evidence.

Object of Re-examination

Re-examination’s purpose is to ask any questions that may be required if the opposing party
has the right to cross-examine the testimony at that point so that the witness should provide a
proper explanation or interpretation of expression during cross-examination.

Direction Of Re-Examination:
The purpose of re-examination is to clarify matters raised in cross-examination, and if a new
issue is raised in re-examination with the court’s permission, the opposition party may cross-
examine the matter further.
Illustration:
If the prosecution council, make chief examination, then after that, the witness is gone for
cross - examination, but in cross - examination the witness answer was in favour of opposite
party, so to make some clarity on that I go for re-examination.
If new matter introduced in the re-examination, with the permission of the court, the defence
or the opposite party can further make cross - examination upon the new matter introduced.

8
ORDER OF EXAMINATION
Section 138 states that the re-examination must be directed by the Court for explaining
matters referred to in cross-examination. The section further states that if any new fact or
issue arises during re-examination, the opposite party can further cross-examine the witness
on that fact or issue.

In the case of Ghulam Rasool Khan v. Wali Khan, it was held by the High Court of Jammu
and Kashmir that- cross-examination might not be necessary if the witness testimony
is prima facie unacceptable.

So, if no relevant facts are answered by the witness or there is no credibility to his statements,
his testimony can be rejected and there is no need for cross-examination in that case.

The examination of a witness must be done specifically in the sequence mentioned under
Section 138. In the case of Sharadamma v. Renchamma, it was held that examination-in-
chief must be done before the cross-examination. The opposite is neither possible nor
permissible.

EXAMINATION OF NON-WITNESS

Section 139

Apart from witness testimonies, there are numerous other forms of evidence admissible in the
Court of law.

Documentary evidence as described in Section 3(2)(e) of the act is one of them. A person
might be called just in order to produce a document. Section 139 of the Act states that- such a
person called in for producing documents, does not become a witness.

He can be examined in order to establish the credibility of the document. But, he cannot be
cross-examined unless he has been called as a witness.

9
Section 140

Section 140 talks about the character of a party. “Character” of someone refers to their
quality or characteristics that distinguish them. Especially mental and moral characteristics. It
also includes a person’s reputation in society.

The section states that the witness to a party’s character can be cross-examined if the
examination-in-chief has already been completed.

The evidence of character is helpful to assist the Court in determining the value of statements
given by the witnesses.

LEADING QUESTIONS

While examining, cross-examining, or re-examining a witness, the parties must refrain from
asking leading questions. Leading questions have been described in Section 141 of the Act
as- any question that suggests the answer which the person questioning expects to receive.

One party must object if the other party asks a leading question to the witness.

A leading question suggests the witness the answer, for example:

 “You saw Harry wearing a black robe, didn’t you?”

This question by itself suggests that Harry was wearing a black robe, this question is
leading the witness to reply with what the questioner wants.
 “What was Harry wearing?”
The answer to this question could be the same as the previous one, however, there are
no suggestions in the question. It is a simple question and not leading in any way. These
types of questions are permitted.

This is because the witness must answer every question by himself as he is the one who has
witnessed the fact. If there is a suggestion in the question, the questioner would be feeding
responses to the witness.

Can leading questions be asked to a witness?

Even though asking leading questions is prohibited by Section 141 as it feeds the witness
with responses and must be objected by the opposite party when asked to a witness.
However, Section 142 says that leading questions can be asked in an examination-in-chief, or
in a re-examination if the Court permits.

The section further states that leading questions can be permitted by the Court in cases where
the facts are introductory or undisputed or those in the opinion of the Court have already been
sufficiently proved.

10
The same was supported by the High Court of Kerela in the case of Varkey Joseph v. the
State of Kerela.

Section 142 does not mention asking leading questions during cross-examination.
But, Section 143 states that leading questions can be asked even in cross-examination.

Leading questions cannot be asked in examination-in-chief, cross-examination, or re-

examination only if objected by the other party. Such questions may be asked if the other
party does not object.

Even when a leading question has been objected, it is at the discretion of the Court whether to
allow it or not and the discretion will not be interfered by the Court of appeal or revision
except in extreme cases.

ORAL EVIDENCE OF WRITTEN DOCUMENTS

Section 144 states that any witness may be asked questions regarding the contents of a
document or contract that is not present in the document. If the witness gives statements
regarding such documents, it must be produced before the Court.

The opposite party can object to such evidence until it has been produced in the Court.

For example:

 Harry claims that overheard Hermoine telling Ron that “Tom has written a letter
threatening to kill my family and I will kill him before he can do anything”.
This statement is relevant in showing Hermoine’s intention for the murder, and
evidence may be given for it, though no other evidence is given about the letter.

If a witness is giving evidence regarding a contract, grant or any other disposition of property
he may be asked whether there is a documentation of the same. If he answers with yes,
then Section 91 of the Act becomes applicable and oral evidence of the terms of the said
document will not be permitted.

In the case of Atul Bora v. Akan Bora, the Court held that Section 144 has no application
when the witness is sought to be cross-examined by the election-petitioner, has not been
asked any question on any contract, grant or other disposition of property.

CROSS-EXAMINATION ON PREVIOUS STATEMENTS

Every statement given by a witness must be reduced to writing. He can on a later stage of
cross-examination be contradicted on his prior made statements.

11
Section 145 of the act states that such contradictions can be made in relevant questions
without showing the writings to the witness before they are proved. Once the statements have
been proved to be true, there is no use of contradicting the witness then.

In the case of Purshottam Jethanand v. The State Of Kutch, the Court observed that this
section does not help the accused to get the statements made during the investigation, but it
does help him to use such statements in case he somehow obtained them. The statement on
which the witness is being contradicted must be relevant to the matter issue.

LAWFUL QUESTIONS

The witness’s statements will be taken as evidence by the Court, but it must be proved that
the witness is actually telling the truth. Section 146 states that during cross-examination of a
witness, he may be in addition to the aforementioned questions also be asked questions that
try to:

 Test his accuracy or truthfulness.

 Understand more about the witness and his position in life.
 To shake his credit by questioning his character.
Even though the answers to these questions have the capacity to directly or indirectly
criminate or expose him or directly or indirectly lead him to penalty or forfeiture, the witness
is compelled to answer such questions.

However, the section does not permit to adduce any evidence or ask any questions in cross-
examination that may include the victim’s moral character or previous sexual experience with
any person.

Is the witness compelled to answer?

Section 147 of the Act states that if any question related to a relevant issue of the case,
then Section 132 shall be applicable.

Section 132 says that the witness will not be excused from answering any question on the
grounds that the answer might criminalize him or lead to a penalty or forfeiture on any
question regarding a relevant issue in the case.

The proviso to the section says that no such answer shall subject him to arrest or prosecution
or be proved against him in any criminal proceeding. Apart from prosecution for giving false
evidence by his statements.

It is mentioned in Section 148 of the Act, that the Court must decide whether a witness
should be compelled to answer or not.

12
This statute provides the witness with protection from aggressive cross-examination. He is
not obligated to answer questions that:

 Injures his character, or

 Doubts his credibility.

In Bombay Cotton Manufacturing Co. v. R.B. Motilal Shivlal, it has been pointed out that
such questions relate to relevant facts and are relevant only to the issue whether the witness
should or should not be believed.

In cases where the decision is solely dependent on oral evidence, it is most important to
answer such questions.

Therefore, the Court can decide when a witness is compelled to answer questions and if the
questions tend to criminalize him in any way, he cannot be prosecuted on the basis of his
statements. He has been granted protection by the statute.

QUESTIONS MUST BE ON REASONABLE GROUNDS

No question must be asked to the accused without any reasonable ground as mentioned
in Section 149 of the Evidence Act.

The section states that any questions referred to in Section 148 are to be asked only when
there are reasonable grounds to ask such questions that might injure the witness’s character or
expose him.

To understand the provision better, let’s look at illustrations of Section 149:

 A barrister is informed by an advocate that the witness is a dacoit. This is a

reasonable ground to ask whether the witness is a dacoit or not.
 When nothing is known about a witness and he is randomly asked whether he is a
dacoit. There are no reasonable grounds for this question.

It is clear upon reading the illustration that this Section also intends to protect the witness
from getting his character injured.

Illustrations:

(a) A lawyer shall be told by a lawyer or vakil that an important witness is a dakait. This is a
fair basis for questioning the witness if he is a dakait.

13
(b) The pleader shall be told by the person before the court that an important witness is a
dakait. The informant, upon being questioned by the pleader, gives satisfactory reasons for
the allegation. This is a fair basis for questioning the witness if he is a dakait.

(c) A witness, of whom nothing is known, is randomly asked if he is a dakait. There are no
fair grounds for the issue.

(d) A witness, about whom nothing is known, being asked as to his way of life and means of
living, gives unsatisfactory answers. This could be a fair ground to ask him if he is a dakait.

Further, Section-150 mentions that if any barrister, pleader, vakil or attorney asks such
questions as mentioned above, without any reasonable grounds, then the Court must report
the matter to the High Court or other authority to which such advocate is the subject in the
exercise of his profession.

FORBIDDEN QUESTIONS
The Court has been conferred with the power under Section 151 to forbid such questions that
are indecent or scandalous.

In the case of Mohammad Mian v. Emperor, it was held that these questions may only be
allowed if they are related to the matter and are regarding a relevant fact in issue, or essential
for finding out whether some fact in issue exists.

The Court can also forbid questions that are intended to insult or annoy as stated in Section
152 of the act. The section further states that the Court might forbid a question even if it is
proper, but the Court thinks that it is needlessly offensive in form.

QUESTIONS SHOULD NOT ATTACK THE WITNESS’S CHARACTER

A question asked during an examination of a witness must establish a fact in the case, it
should not be asked merely to shake his credit or injure his character. It is stated in Section
153 of the Act.

It says that if any question has been asked and the witness has answered it and it only causes
injury to the witness’s character, no evidence shall be given to contradict him. Unless he
answers falsely, in which case he will be charged for giving false statements.

There are two exceptions to this section, which are:

 If a witness has been asked whether or not he was previously convicted. On denial of
the witness, the evidence regarding the proof of his previous conviction can be given.

14
  If a witness has been asked a question that impeaches is impartiality, on denial of
witness, he may be contradicted.
It means that if a party has sufficient grounds to believe that the witness is not
impartial, they may contradict him and try to furnish proof.

In the case of State of Karnataka v. Yarappa Reddy, the Supreme Court added that the basic
requirement for adducing such contradictory evidence is that the witness, whose impartiality
is in question, must be presented with evidence and asked about it and he should have denied
it.

Without adopting such preliminary measures, it would be meaningless and unfair to bring a
new witness to speak something fresh about a witness already examined.

To understand this better, here’s a hypothetical situation:

 A claims to have seen B at Delhi on a certain date,

 A is asked whether he himself was at Calcutta that very day or not,
 A denies it,
 Evidence is adduced to show A was actually in Calcutta.

The evidence is admissible, not as contradicting A on the fact which affects his credit but as
contradicting the alleged fact that he saw B in Delhi on that same date. The same was held in
the case of Reg. v. Sakharam Mukundjee.

QUESTIONS BY A PARTY TO HIS OWN WITNESS

Section 154 of the Evidence Act allows a party who calls a witness to ask any question to
their own witness like they are cross-examining him.

Sometimes a witness can turn hostile and it is necessary for the party that called a witness to
cross-examine him if such a situation occurs.

In the case of Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration, the Supreme Court has interpreted this
section and defined a hostile witness as one who is not willing, to tell the truth when a party
calls him.

For the purpose of cross-examination under this section, there must be enough evidence to
show that the witness is not telling the truth and he has turned hostile as held in Atul Bora v.
Akan Bora.

15
In the State of Rajasthan v. Bhera, the Court observed that a previous testimony of a hostile
witness can be used as evidence as they are still on record. If the party does not resist the
hostility of the witness, then it is upon the Court to find out the truth.

The Section clearly states that it is the discretion of the Court to allow such cross-
examination or not. In Mattam Ravi v. Mattam Raja Yellaiah, the Court held that:

 The Courts have a legal obligation to exercise their discretionary powers in a

judicious manner by proper application of mind and keeping in view the attending
circumstances.
 Permission for cross-examination with regard to Section 154 cannot and should
not be granted on mere asking.

IMPEACHING CREDIT OF WITNESSES

The term “Hostile Witness” does not appear in the Indian Evidence Act. When any witness is
permitted by the court to be cross examined by the party who called him, the witness is
popularly called hostile witness. If the court thinks from the evidence, demeanour, temper,
attitude, tenor and tendency of answering the questions, from perusal of previous inconsistent
statements of the witness that grant of permission is expedient to extract the truth and to do
justice, the court can do so u/s. 154 of I.E. Act.

If the witness has turned hostile, his credit can be impeached by the opposite party, or by the
party that calls him (subject to permission from the Court). Section 155 provides three ways
of doing so:

1. By calling such a person who can from their personal experience and knowledge
testify against the witness and establish that the witness in question is unworthy of
credit.
2. By furnishing proof that the witness has taken a bribe, or has accepted to take a
bribe, or any other incentive to turn hostile.
3. By showing inconsistency in his former statements and contradicting him to the
extent permitted by Section 153 as held in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. Sate of
Gujarat.

Illustrations

(a) A sue B for the price of the products sold and sent to B.

C states he shipped the goods to B.

Evidence is provided to prove that, on a previous occasion, he had said that he had not
supplied goods to B.

The proof is admissible.

16
 (b) A is charged with the murder of B.

C says that B, when he died, declared that A had given B the wound from which he died.

Evidence is provided to prove that, on a previous occasion, C said that the wound was not
given by or in the presence of A.

The proof is admissible.

CORROBORATION OF EVIDENCE

Sometimes merely asking the most relevant fact may not be enough to obtain all the
necessary facts from a witness. Some questions that do not seem very much connected to the
relevant fact can be asked if they help corroborate such fact.

Section 156 allows parties with the permission of the Court to beat around the bush a little
with the intention of connecting the dots and establishing the relevant fact in issue.

Previous statements given by the witness can also be used to corroborate the later testimony
regarding the same fact as prescribed under Section 157 of the Act.

The prior statements do not need to be given to the Court, it can be any conversation
regarding the facts of the case.

In the case of Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan, a young girl had been raped and she had
told her mother about it. Later that statement of the girl given to her mother was corroborated
with her other statements in order to establish the case.

It is stated in Section 158 of the act that any statement which is relevant under Section
32 or 33 and has been proved, all matters have to be proved in order to confirm or negate it,
or for impeaching or crediting the person that made such statement, to the extent as if that
person had been called as a witness.

REFRESHING MEMORY
We humans, sometimes tend to forget things and it is extremely important to keep
remembering the entirety of the facts if we have been called as a witness. Someone’s life
could be at the line and our statements may help the Court serve justice to someone. A
witness may be under a lot of pressure and due to all the stress he might need to refresh his
memory.

17
Section 159

That is why Section 159 of the Evidence Act says that a witness can refresh his memory
while under examination.

He may do so by referring to any writing made by himself at the time of the event taking
place regarding which he has been questioned, or a while later as long as the Court considers
it to be fresh in his memory.

The witness can also refer to someone else’s notes prepared within the aforementioned time
frame, and decide whether it is correct or not.

The section further says that the witness may use a copy or photocopy of a document with the
permission of the Court in order to refresh his memory.

The word ‘writing’ for the sake of this section includes printed matter. A witness who heard a
speech may refer to his memory by referring to a newspaper account of it if he read it soon
afterwards, and if, at the time he read it, he knew it to be correct.

Section 160

This section states that a witness must testify to the facts that were mentioned in any such
document as mentioned in Section 159. It is irrelevant whether he remembers all the facts that
were recorded with every little detail as long as he is certain that the facts have been recorded
correctly by him.

To better understand this section, we need to look into the illustration provided in the section,
which says:

 A book-keeper will need to testify the facts he has recorded in the books regularly
kept during the course of his business.
 He might not be able to remember every detail about his entry, but as long as he
knows that the facts entered were correct and the book was kept correctly, he is
good to go.
The fundamental difference between Section 159 and Section 160 is that:

 The former talks about the recollection of memory of the witness and not the
document.
 Whereas, in the latter, the document itself becomes evidence of the facts
mentioned therein.

18
Section 161

This section states that any writing or document mentioned in the last two sections above
must be produced and provided to the opposite party if they require it.

The opposite party may cross-examine the witness over the document if the need be.

When a document is produced under Section 161, it becomes subject to a general inspection
and cross-examination by the opposite party.

But the cross-examination on the portion referred to by the witness does not make the
document evidence against the cross-examiner.

It has been made clear in the case of Pran Dutt v. State of Uttar Pradesh that a statement of
record by the investigating officer such as police reports, under Section 161 is not usable for
contradicting a witness.

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Section 162

This section says that a witness when summoned to produce a document must produce it if he
has it in his possession.

If there are any objections with regard to its production or admissibility, the Court will deal
with it. The Court may also inspect the document unless it refers to matters of the state.

In case the documents need to be translated, it can be done so by a translator who must keep
the contents confidential. If the translator leaks the content of the said document, he shall be
charged under Section 166, IPC for disobeying the law.

Section 163

This section mentions that when a party asks another party for a document to be produced,
and it has been produced and inspected by the party that asked for it, he must give it as
evidence if the party producing thinks fit.

To understand this better, let us say:

 Harry and Ron are parties to a case.

 Harry wants a document that is in possession of Ron.

19
  Harry must give Ron notice to produce the document.
 After receiving the notice, Ron has given the document to Harry.
 Harry has inspected the document given by Ron.
 Now, Harry must give that document as evidence to the Court if Ron says so.

Section 164

This Section talks about the consequences when a party upon receiving the notice to produce
a document, does not do so.

If under the aforementioned situation:

 Ron does not give the document to Harry.

 If sometime later, Ron wants to use that document as evidence, he will not be able
to do so without Harry’s consent.

POWER OF THE JUDGE

Section 165 of the Evidence Act talks about the power of the judge to pose questions and
order the production of evidence.

In order to procure proof of relevant facts, the judge may ask any question that suits him. It
does not matter whether the question posed by him is relevant or irrelevant. The question may
be asked at any time during the trial, it may take any form and he could ask anyone, be it the
witness or the parties.

However, the judge cannot compel the witness to answer his questions and his decisions
should not be solely based on his questions. The decisions must be based on relevant facts
and evidence produced.

20
CONCLUSION
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is very necessary for protecting the witnesses, letting him
speak freely without the fear of prosecution. Judicial interpretations have brought significant
positive changes in this act to meet the needs of the time and have made some provisions
more practical. The examination of witnesses is extremely necessary in any case, irrespective
of its civil or criminal nature, and both the procedural laws clarify the examination of
witnesses.

Sections 135 to 166 of the Indian Evidence Act describe the examination of witnesses,
including crucial aspects such as, for example, who may first interview the witnesses during
the examination of the witnesses, what are the relevant facts agreed during the examination of
the witnesses, what questions can be raised by the advocate during the cross-examination of
the witnesses, what questions cannot be as follows.

21
REFERENCES

https://lawbhoomi.com/examination-of-witness-under-indian-evidence-act/

https://blog.ipleaders.in/examination-and-cross-examination-of-witnesses-under-the-indian-
evidence-act/

https://lawsstudy.com/examination-of-witness-as-per-the-indian-evidence-act1872/

https://www.mondaq.com/india/trials-amp-appeals-amp-compensation/947522/examination-
of-witness-legal-aspects

22
23