Section 148 Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Cross-examination as to previous statements in writing

Section 148 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Cross-examination as to previous statements in writing

Official Bare Act Text

Override / Mandate Mens Rea (Intent) Actus Reus (Conduct) Punishment Limitation Monetary

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.

Statutory Defined Terms in this Section: (Click any term for official legal definition)

Court Sec 2(1)(a) Document Sec 2(1)(b) Evidence Sec 2(1)(c) Proved Sec 2(1)(f) Secondary Evidence Sec 58

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 148

Section 148 embodies the paramount trial tool for confronting and impeaching a witness with their previous statements in writing, without such writing being shown to them or proved beforehand, establishing strict confrontation procedure.

Cross-Examination on Previous Statements: A witness may be cross-examined as to previous statements made by them in writing or reduced into writing (e.g. police statements, earlier affidavits, letters).
Contradiction Procedure: If it is intended to contradict the witness by the writing, their attention must, before the writing can be proved, be called to those parts which are to be used for contradiction.
Criminal & Civil Application: The foundational mechanism for proving contradictions with police statements recorded under Section 180 BNSS (former 161 CrPC).

Key Landmark Precedents:

Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P. (AIR 1959 SC 1012): A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court laid down the mandatory procedure under Section 145 IEA (Section 148 BSA): the witness's attention must be drawn specifically to the contradictory passage in their previous statement, giving them an opportunity to explain.
V.K. Mishra v. State of Uttarakhand (2015) 9 SCC 588: Reiterated the three-step contradiction rule: (1) put the contradictory statement to the witness, (2) record their answer/denial, and (3) prove the contradiction through the Investigating Officer.

Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

To prove a contradiction with an FIR or police statement: read the exact sentence to the witness, ask 'Did you make this statement to the police?', record their answer, have the passage marked as 'Portion A to B', and prove it when the Investigating Officer testifies.