Prof.

Javaid Talib
Prof. Md. Ashraf
Dept. of Law, AMU
Study Material
Law of Evidence- II
B.A.LL. B (HONS) VI SEMESTER
Unit-5
A. EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES (CONT.)
Leading questions (SS.141, 142,143)
Section 141. Leading questions —Any question suggesting the answer which the person
putting it wishes or expects to receive, is called a leading question.
Section 142. When they must not be asked —Leading questions must not, if objected to by
the adverse party, be asked in an examination-in-chief, or in a re-examination, except with the
permission of the Court.
The Court shall permit leading questions as to matters which are introductory or undisputed,
or which have, in its opinion, been already sufficiently proved.
Section 143. When they may be asked —Leading questions may be asked in cross-
examination.
A ‘leading Question’ is one suggesting the answer which the person asking it wishes to receive
from a witness. According to Section 141 “any questing suggesting the answer which the
person putting wishes or expects to receive is called a leading question.” For example, Is not
your name so and so? Do you live in such and such place? However, if any has to be assessed
on facts of each case it is not as if every single leading question would invalidate trial.
Whether a question is leading or not the test has been suggested by Justice Amir Ali. According
to him “a question may be answered by ‘yes’ or ‘no’ is generally leading, but not if it does not
suggest the answer.”
When leading question cannot be asked:
Under section 142 leading questions must not be asked in examination-in-chief, or in re-
examination or objected by the adverse party. It may be asked in the examination-in-chief of a
witness with the permission of the court. But it can be asked if permitted by the court as to
matter which are introductory or which are undisputed or which in the opinion of the court
have already been sufficiently proved.
When leading question may be asked:
Section 143 lays down that the leading questions may be put in cross-examination. No leading
question is allowed in cross- examination where the facts have already been proved or admitted
by the party.
Evidence as to matters in writing (SS. 144,145)
Section 144, Evidence as to matters in writing —Any witness may be asked, whilst under
examination, whether any contract, grant or other disposition of property, as to which he is
giving evidence, was not contained in a document, and if he says that it was, or if he is about
to make any statement as to the contents of any document, which, in the opinion of the Court,

SFA
Prof. Javaid Talib
Prof. Md. Ashraf
Dept. of Law, AMU
ought to be produced, the adverse party may object to such evidence being given until such
document is produced, or until facts have been proved which entitle the party who called the
witness to give secondary evidence of it.
Explanation. — A witness may give oral evidence of statements made by other persons about
the contents of documents if such statements are in themselves relevant facts.
Illustration
The question is, whether A assaulted B.
C deposes that he heard A say to D—"B wrote a letter accusing me of theft, and I will be
revenged on him”. This statement is relevant as showing A’s motive for the assault, and
evidence may be given of it, though no other evidence is given about the latter.
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.
Section 145, Cross-examination as to previous statements in writing — A witness may be
cross-examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing, and
relevant to matters in question, without such writing being shown to him, or being proved; but,
if it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention must, before the writing can be
proved, be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him.
Scope:
Section 145 is to deal with one of the methods of impeaching the credit of witness. Under
Exception 2 of Section 153 of the Evidence Act a witness may be asked any question tending
to impeach his impartiality. It permits oral statement to be used for contradiction. But the
present section deals with the method of contradicting previous statements of witness in writing
by cross- examination. The rule will apply where a witness is not a party to the suit and would
not apply when a party to the suit is examining himself as a witness.

SFA
Prof. Javaid Talib
Prof. Md. Ashraf
Dept. of Law, AMU
Principle:
Section 145 consists of two parts. According to the first part a witness may be cross-examined
as to previous statement made by him in writing or is reduced into writing without showing the
writing to him or proving the same. Second part is intended to contradict him through cross-
examination where the previous statement is in writing. The object of the section is either to
test the memory of witness or to contradict him by previous statements in writing.
This section applies to both civil and criminal cases. The section has no application where the
witness sought to be contradicted nor by his own statement but by the statement of another
witness. In the first part there is only cross- -examination. There is no rule of law that an earlier
statement shall be treated as correct and the subsequent contrary statement shall be discarded.
Under the section if the witness is sought to be impeached by way of contradiction between his
present statements with previous statement his attention must be called to it. The object of this
procedure is to give the witness a chance of explaining or reconciling his statements before
contradiction can be used in evidence.
If the contradiction is put to witness and it is denied by him even then it will not amount putting
contradiction to witness. An unsigned statement cannot be used to contradiction. In order to
contradict statements taken under section 162, Cr. PC the attention of the witness must be
drawn to that part of the statement which contradicts the present statement, but it cannot apply
to statements recorded under section 161 of the Cr. PC. A witness can be contradicted with
statement records under section 161, Cr. PC. during the course of investigation.
Contradiction:
The question of contradicting statements has been considered by the Supreme Court in number
of cases. Omission to state a fact amounts to contradiction. According to the opinion of the
court if it is intended to contradict him his attention must be drawn to those parts writing of it
which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him.
It has also been held that if the witness drawn to have made any statement which is inconsistent
with his present stand, his testimony in court on that score would not be vitiated until cross-
examination proceeds to comply with the procedure presented in the second Section 145 of the
Evidence Act. In case of inconsistency between two statements is a matter of appreciation of
evidence and it is for the court to examine the same.
The attention of the witness must be called to those part and which must be put and read out to
the witness before questioning for the purpose of contradiction. If it is not put before
questioning it cannot be used for contradiction.
Section 145 is not attracted when a statement made by a witness is contradicted by other
witness.
F.I.R:
The First Information Report recorded under section 154 of the Cr. PC may be used to
contradict the present statement of the witness, although it is not substantive piece of evidence.
It may also be used for contradiction under section 157 of the Evidence Act. The statement
may be used as an admission for civil litigation.

SFA
Prof. Javaid Talib
Prof. Md. Ashraf
Dept. of Law, AMU
B. CROSS- EXAMINATION
Section 146, Lawful questions in cross-examination: When a witness is cross-examined, he
may, in addition to the questions herein-before referred to, be asked any questions which
tend—
1. to lest his veracity.
2. to discover who he is and what is his position in life, or
3. to shake his credit, by injuring his character, although the answer to such questions
might tend directly or indirectly to criminate him or might expose or tend directly or
indirectly to expose him to a penalty or forfeiture;
[Provided that in a prosecution for rape or attempt to commit rape, it shall not be
permissible to put questions in the cross-examination of the prosecutrix as to her general
immoral character.]
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.
Protection to witness in cross-examination (SS.147-153)
Section 147, When witness to be compelled to answer: “If any such question relates to a
matter relevant to the suit or proceeding, the provisions of Section 132 shall apply thereto.”
Section 147 is the supplement to Section 146. When any question relating to a matter relevant
to the suit or proceeding is put to the witness, the provision of Section 132 shall apply. Under
section 132 a witness cannot be excused from answering any question relevant to the matter in
issue on the ground that answer to such question may criminate him or expose him to penalty
or forfeiture. Thus, the court can compel a witness to answer to the relevant question. When
such question is relevant which affects the credit of witness the court is to decide the matter
under section 148 whether he shall be compelled to answer or not.

SFA
Prof. Javaid Talib
Prof. Md. Ashraf
Dept. of Law, AMU
Section 148: Court to decide when question shall be asked and when witness compelled
to answer.—If any such question relates to a matter not relevant to the suit or proceeding,
except in so far as it affects the credit of the witness by injuring his character, the Court shall
decide whether or not the witness shall be compelled to answer it, and may, if it thinks fit, warn
the witness that he is not obliged to answer it. In exercising its discretion, the Court shall have
regard to the following considerations:
(1) Such questions are proper if they are of such a nature that the truth of the imputation
conveyed by them would seriously affect the opinion of the Court as to the credibility of the
witness on the matter to which he testifies;
(2) Such questions are improper if the imputation which they convey relates to matters so
remote in time, or of such a character, that the truth of the imputation would not affect, or
would affect in a slight degree, the opinion of the Court as to the credibility of the witness on
the matter to which he testifies;
(3) Such questions are improper if there is a great disproportion between the importance of
the imputation made against the witness’s character and the importance of his evidence;
(4) The Court may, if it sees fit, draw, from the witness’s refusal to answer, the inference that
the answer if given would be unfavourable.
This section, in a way, gives protection to the witness from being improperly cross-examined
and from being harassed. In case the court allows a question and the witness rejects to answer,
the court will draw an inference that the answer if given would be unfavourable to him or refuse
to draw inference .If questions asked during cross examination is not relevant the court has to
decide whether witness has to answer or not. Court has to check which question is proper
question and which question is improper. Court has to see which question is remotely
connected with facts and which question is not remotely connected with facts. This exercise of
a court gives protection to witnesses present in court from unwarranted examinations.
It is mentioned in Section 148 of the Act, that the Court must decide whether a witness should
be compelled to answer or not.
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.

SFA
Prof. Javaid Talib
Prof. Md. Ashraf
Dept. of Law, AMU
Section 149, Question not to be asked without reasonable grounds: No such question as is
referred to in Section 148 ought to be asked unless the person asking it has reasonable grounds
for thinking that the imputation which it conveys is well-founded.
Illustrations:
(a) A barrister is instructed by an attorney or vakil that an important witness is a dacoit. This is
a reasonable ground for asking the witness whether he is a dacoit.
(b) A pleader is informed by a person in Court that an important witness is a dacoit. The
informant, on being questioned by the pleader, gives satisfactory reasons for his statement.
This is a reasonable ground for asking the witness whether he is a dacoit.
(c) A witness, of whom nothing whatever is known, is asked at random whether he is a dacoit.
There are here no reasonable grounds for the question.
(d) A witness, of whom nothing whatever is known, being questioned as to his mode of life
and means of living, gives unsatisfactory answers. This may be a reasonable ground for asking
him if he is a dacoit.
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.
Section 150, Procedure of Court in case of question being asked without reasonable
grounds: If the Court is of opinion that any such question was asked without reasonable
grounds, it may, if it was asked by any barrister, pleader, vakil or attorney, report the
circumstances of the case to the High Court or other authority to which such barrister, pleader,
vakil or attorney is the subject in the exercise of his profession.
Comments:
This section prescribes rule for protecting a bona fide legal practitioner as well as for innocent
witness. It lays down if defamatory question is asked by the counsel without any reasonable
ground the court may make a report about this to the respective High Court. In such a case no,
legal practitioner can claim any privilege and are to be subjected to civil criminal liability. “It

SFA
Prof. Javaid Talib
Prof. Md. Ashraf
Dept. of Law, AMU
is clearly within the powers of the High Courts to direct an enquiry with a view to a disciplinary
action in flagrant cases which come under their notice.
Section 151, Indecent and scandalous questions: The Court may forbid any questions or
inquiries which it regards as indecent or scandalous, although such questions or inquiries may
have some bearing on the questions before the Court, unless they relate to facts in issue, or to
matters necessary to be known in order to determine whether or not the facts in issue existed.
Comments:
Section 151 confers power upon the court to forbid putting any question which is indecent or
scandalous. The court may stop it if it appears to be indecent or scandalous in the opinion of
the court. Such question may be put to the witness during cross-examination when it relates to
facts in issue or is necessarily connected with them.
The Supreme Court considered such question being improper and opined: “indecent and
scandalous questions were allowed to be asked to a woman witness whose child had been
kidnapped and killed particularly when the paternity of the child was not in question.
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.
Section 152, Questions intended to insult or annoy:
The Court shall forbid any question which appears to it to be intended to insult or annoy, or
which, though proper in itself, appears to the Court needlessly offensive in form.
Comments:
Section 152 invests a court with discretion to forbid any question which is intended to insult or
annoy the witness or which is needlessly offensive even if the question is proper on particular
point. If assessity arises the court can also hold in-camera trial to ensure deposition of the
witnesses without any fear or embarrassment.
Section 153, Exclusion of evidence to contradict answers to questions testing veracity:
When a witness has been asked and has answered any question which is relevant to the inquiry
only in so far as it tends to shake his credit by injuring his character, no evidence shall be given
to contradict him; but, if he answers falsely, he may afterwards be charged with giving false
evidence.
Exception 1:
If a witness is asked whether he has been previously convicted of any crime and denies it,
evidence may be given of his previous conviction.
Exception 2:
If a witness is asked any question tending to impeach his impartiality, and answers it by denying
the facts suggested, he may be contradicted.

SFA
Prof. Javaid Talib
Prof. Md. Ashraf
Dept. of Law, AMU
Illustrations:
(a) A claim against an underwriter is resisted on the ground of fraud.
The claimant is asked whether, in a former transaction, he had not made a fraudulent claim. He
denies it.
Evidence is offered to show that he did make such a claim. The evidence is inadmissible.
(b) A witness is asked whether he was not dismissed from a situation for dishonesty. He denies
it.
Evidence is offered to show that he was dismissed for dishonesty. The evidence is not
admissible.
(c) A affirms that on a certain day he saw В at Lahore.
A is asked whether he himself was not on that day at Calcutta. He denies it. Evidence is offered
to show that A was on that day at Calcutta.
The evidence is admissible, not as contradicting A on a fact which affects his credit, but as
contradicting the alleged fact that В was seen on the day in question in Lahore.
In each of these cases the witness might, if his denial was false, be charged with giving false
evidence.
(d) A is asked whether his family has not had a blood feud with the family of В against whom
he gives evidence.
He denies it. He may be contradicted on the ground that the question tends to impeach his
impartiality.
Comments:
Object. Section 153 provides further protection to a witness from being injuring his character
as well as to prevent prolong trial to an unreasonable period. Under this section “the court must
not be forced to concentrate its mind to assess the witness without assessing the merit of the
case.” Because the court is to find the facts of the case not to assess the character of a witness.
Principle:
When a witness gives answer to a question as to his credit then it is conclusive and no further
evidence is allowed to be given to contradict it except few specific cases.
Evidence contradicting witness:
Where there is merit of the case and the relevant fact having direct connection with issue which
is denied by the witness in cross-examination, the defence has right to establish contradiction
by producing extraneous evidence so that the witness may not take any advantage.
Under section 155(3) “the credit of a witness may be impeached by his former contradicting
statement. But the contradicting statement should not be a mere minor discrepancy. The
contradiction, discrepancy or inconsistency must be such as to afford the credibility of the
witness. According to the Illustration (c) the evidence of independent witness is admissible.
For the purpose of contradicting a witness the defence may request the witness to be recalled.”

SFA
Prof. Javaid Talib
Prof. Md. Ashraf
Dept. of Law, AMU
When the object of producing evidence is not merely to discredit a witness by injuring his
character but is to shake the credit of the witness by showing that the version was untrue and
improbable, such evidence is covered by Illustration (c) of Section 153 of the Evidence Act
and is relevant.” The accused can offer evidence showing that person produced as eye-witness
was at different place at the material time than at the place of occurrence. It is of no
consequence that the inquest report showed his presence at the site of occurrence.
Exception 1:
Under this exception if the witness denies his previous conviction of any crime, it can be proved
by evidence. He may afterwards be prosecuted for giving false evidence under section 193 of
the Indian Penal Code.
Exception 2:
Under exception 2 if a witness is asked a question showing that he is not impartial and he
denied it, the evidence is allowed to be given to prove his impartiality. Whereas “Section 153
generally deals with the exclusion of evidence to contradict answers to the questions testing
veracity, Exception 2 states that if a witness is asked any question tending to impeach his
impartiality and answer by denying the facts suggested, he may be contradicted.” It may be
said that Section 153 controls Section 146(3) of the Evidence Act. Because, under section
146(3) a witness may be questioned which tends to shake his credit by injuring his character in
addition to the relevant questions relating to the issue.
When contradictions arise out of lengthy and arduous cross-examination and there is every
possibility of the witness committing mistake, the Supreme Court appreciated such type of
fulfilling tactics of the cross-examination.
Hostile witnesses (S.154)
Section 154, Question by party to his own witness:
(1) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any question
to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.
(2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under sub-section (1), to
rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.
Comments:
Principle:
Section 154 allows a party calling a witness may, with the permission of the court, put leading
questions and cross-examine him when it is found that he is a hostile or unwilling to answer
questions put to him. It is discretion of the court to allow party to cross-examine his own
witness. In trial of an election petition under R.P. Act the provisions of Section 154 can be
applied.
Hostile witness:
“A hostile witness is one who from the manner in which he gives evidence shows that he is not
desirous of telling the truth to the court.” He is a person who is interested to give evidence for

SFA
Prof. Javaid Talib
Prof. Md. Ashraf
Dept. of Law, AMU
the party who wanted him to give in its favour. But the expression hostile witness does not
been used in the Evidence Act.
Questions by party to his own witness:
It is very often found that the witness who has been called by the party, does not depose in
favour of the party. Rather the deposion given by him becomes favourable to the adverse party.
In such type of cases the question about conduct of witness arises. The witness seems to be
interested to speak something which is only favourable to the opposite party. Where the witness
is not confronted with his earlier statement, the earlier statement of the witness cannot be used
even it has been made voluntarily. If it happens it is the duty of the prosecution to bring
contradiction on record by cross-examination which might be put by the adverse party only. In
such case the party calling the witness is given permission to test his veracity and impeach his
credit.
Nature of questions:
When the permission is granted to the party, although it is absolute discretion of the court to
give it or not to cross-examination its own witness alike the adverse party the witness may be
asked (a) leading questions (Section 143) or (b) question as to his previous statements in writing
(Section 145) or (c) question under section 146 in order to injure his character or (c) question
impeaching his credit (Section 155).
If the witness turns hostile either in examination-in-chief or in cross- examination by the
adverse party, the court may grant leave. It is absolute discretion of the court. It is legal
obligation to exercise discretion invested in the court. When the prosecution witness was not
concurring on a point of a post-event detail, the court observed that it was not sufficient for the
public prosecutor to proclaim that the witness had adopted a hostile posture.
The testimony of the hostile witness must be closely scrutinized before he is allowed to be
cross-examined. The evidence of such witness is not to be rejected ipso facto. The parties can
take advantage of believable portion, but the court must be extremely cautious and circumspect
in accepting such evidence.
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.
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.

SFA
Prof. Javaid Talib
Prof. Md. Ashraf
Dept. of Law, AMU
 Permission for cross-examination with regard to Section 154 cannot and should not be
granted on mere asking.
Impeachment of credit of witnesses (S.155)
Section 155, Impeaching credit of witness: The credit of a witness may be impeached in the
following ways by the adverse party, or with the consent of the Court, by the party who calls
him:
(1) By the evidence of persons who testify that they, from their knowledge of the witness believe
him to be unworthy of credit;
(2) By proof that the witness has been bribed, or has accepted the offer of a bribe, or has
received any other corrupt inducement to give his evidence;
(3) By proof of former statements inconsistent with any part of his evidence which is liable to
be contradicted;
Explanation:
A witness declaring another witness to be unworthy of credit may not, upon his examination-
in-chief, give reasons for his belief, but he may be asked his reasons in cross-examination, and
the answers which he gives cannot be contradicted, though, if they are false, he may afterwards
be charged with giving false evidence.
Illustrations:
(a) A sues В for the price of goods sold and delivered to B.
С says that he delivered the goods to B.
Evidence is offered to show that, on a previous occasion, he said that he had not delivered the
goods to B.
The evidence is admissible.
(b) A is indicted for the murder of B.
С says the B, when dying, declared that A had given В the wound of which he died. Evidence
is offered to show that, on a previous occasion, С said that the wound was not given by A or in
his presence.
The evidence is admissible.
Principle:
Section 155 deals with manners by which the credit of a witness may be impeached.
Impeaching the credit of witness means exposing him before the court as what is real character,
so that the court does not trust him. Impeaching the credit of witness may be done either by the
opposite party or with the permission of court by the party who called him:
Sections dealing with impeaching credit of witness:
1. Section 155 provides for impeaching the credit of witness.
2. Impeaching the credit of a witness by cross-examination (Sections 138, 140, 145 and 154).

SFA
Prof. Javaid Talib
Prof. Md. Ashraf
Dept. of Law, AMU
3. By putting questions injuring character of witness in cross-examination (Section 146).
Method of Impeaching Credit
Unworthy of Credit (Clause 1):
By producing independent witnesses from their means of knowledge and experience, they can
testify that the witness if question is unworthy of credit. In order to disclose such witness as
untruthful the court should be undoubtedly sure that independent witnesses are well acquainted
with the general reputation of the witness. “In theory such is confined to general reputation for
untruthfulness, and the witness is to state his personal opinion, but in practice the question is
put in this way.”
Corrupt inducement (Clause 2):
By producing independent witness, the credit of witness can be impeached that he has taken
bribe, or has accepted the offer of a bribe or has received any other corrupt inducement to give
evidence. When any kind of corrupt inducement is proved the witness is completely
discredited.
Previous inconsistent statements (Clause 3):
This clause provides that the credit of witness may be impeached by proving his previous
statements. When the present statement is contradicted by citing previous statement it must be
satisfactorily proved. The previous contradictory statements of a witness can be used to
discredit only his testimony and not that of other witnesses.
Previous statements recorded on tape can be used to corroborate as well as to contradict the
evidence. The previous inconsistent statement must relate to the matter in issue. This third sub-
clause refers to a former statement which is inconsistent with the statement made by the witness
in evidence in the case and it is permissible that the witness be contradicted about that
statement.
Clause 4:
Explanation:
In examination-in-chief a witness cannot be asked the reasons for his belief that another witness
is unworthy of credit. Such questions can be asked only in cross-examination.
Production and inspection of documents (S.162)
Section 162, Production of documents: A witness summoned to produce a document shall, if
it is in his possession or power, bring it to the Court, notwithstanding any objection which
there may be to its production or to its admissibility. The validity of any such objection shall
be decided on by the Court.
The Court, if it sees, fit, may inspect the document, unless it refers to matters of State, or take
other evidence to enable it to determine on its admissibility.
Translation of documents: If for such a purpose it is necessary to cause any document to be
translated, the Court may, if it thinks fit, direct the translator to keep the contents secret, unless

SFA
Prof. Javaid Talib
Prof. Md. Ashraf
Dept. of Law, AMU
the document is to be given in evidence: and, if the interpreter disobeys such direction, he shall
be held to have committed an offence under section 166 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
Comments:
Scope Section 162 lays down that when a witness is summoned by the court to produce any
document, notwithstanding any objection, he is bound to produce the same provided the
document in question is in his possession or power. The section refers to official as well as
private documents.
If any objection is raised by the witness in respect of production of the document, the court
shall decide it. For the purpose of determining its admissibility the court may inspect the
document except in cases of documents where privilege is claimed by the state under section
123. But the court may, in order to determine claims of the state, take further evidence in this
regard.
If the language of the document is not known to the court it may order the document to be
translated and direct the translator to keep the contents secret unless the document is ordered
to be given in evidence. If the translator fails to obey the order of the court, he may be held to
be committed offence under section 166 of the Indian Penal Code.
Order 15, Rule 6:
Under Order XV, Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code and Section 91 (2) of the Criminal
Procedure Code the person may be summoned to produce the document without being
summoned to give evidence. While calling for production of privileged documents, general
public interest must be considered paramount to individual interest of the suitor.
Matter relating to affairs of State:
Where an official is summoned to produce an official document, he is bound to produce it, but
at the same time he may raise objection as to its production. However, the objection being well
founded is to be considered by the court which is not entitled to inspect the document if it refers
to the affairs of the state. The court without inspecting the document decides the question by
examining the officer.
The question of inspection of state’s document must be determined by the relevant facts and
circumstances. If the court comes to the decision that the document is an unpublished record
relating to affairs of the state for which privilege may be claimed and the production of it is
sole and only discretion of the Head of the Department under section 123, the court will not
compel production of the document.

SFA
Prof. Javaid Talib
Prof. Md. Ashraf
Dept. of Law, AMU
Suggested Readings:
1. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Relevant Statutory Provisions)
2. Monir : Law of Evidence
3. Batuk Lal : Law of Evidence
4. Ratan Lal & Dhiraj Lal : Law of Evidence
5. Avtar Singh : Principle of Law of Evidence
6. Tandon : Indian Evidence Act
7. R. Dayal : Indian Evidence Act
8. Dr. Satish Chandra : Indian Evidence Act

SFA