BACK TO IEA 1872AIR 1959 SC 1012
IEA 1872Chapter X
Section 145
Cross-Examination as to Previous Statements in Writing
Of the Examination of Witnesses
Quick Legal SummaryBSA BSA S.149
Statutory Snapshot
THE STATUTE
Original Text
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.
Legal Commentary
Section 145 is the foundational provision for using prior inconsistent statements to impeach a witness — one of the most powerful cross-examination tools.
**Two distinct uses:**
1. *Exploration without contradiction:* A witness can be cross-examined about prior written statements without showing them the statement — testing their memory, consistency, or knowledge without formally introducing the statement as evidence.
2. *Contradiction:* If the cross-examiner wants to formally contradict the witness using the prior statement (i.e., show that the witness said X before but says Y now), they must: (a) show the witness the specific parts being used for contradiction, (b) give the witness an opportunity to explain the inconsistency — BEFORE the statement can be formally proved.
**The procedure for contradiction:**
Cross-examiner: 'In your police statement, didn't you say [X]?' Witness: 'No, I didn't.' Cross-examiner: [Show witness the statement] 'I'm showing you your statement to the police officer. Does this say [X]?' Witness: [reads and responds]. After the witness has had the chance to explain, the statement can be formally proved.
**Police statements (Section 161 CrPC / 180 BNSS):**
The most common application: prosecution witnesses frequently give different evidence at trial from what they told police during investigation. Defence uses Section 145 to cross-examine on the police statement. Section 145 is read with Section 162 CrPC (now Section 181 BNSS) which limits the uses to which police statements can be put — they can be used to 'contradict' a prosecution witness but not as substantive evidence.
**Electronic statements — BSA Section 149 extension:**
Section 145's reference to 'statements made in writing or reduced to writing' was interpreted to cover typed statements. BSA Section 149 explicitly extends to statements made in electronic form — covering video statements, audio recordings, WhatsApp messages used as prior statements. This is the primary change from Section 145 to Section 149.
Legislative Intent & Background
Section 145's requirement to show the statement before contradiction was a procedural protection for witnesses — preventing ambush. The requirement gave witnesses a fair opportunity to explain apparent inconsistencies before their credibility was attacked.Critical Provisions & Changes
BSA Section 149 extends to electronic statements explicitly — covering video recordings, audio statements, WhatsApp messages used as prior statements.
Core procedure (show statement before contradiction) preserved.
Landmark Judicial Precedents
Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P. (1959)
Supreme Court held that a prior police statement can only be used to contradict under Section 145 IEA (not as substantive evidence), and the portion used must be the specific contradiction — not the entire statement introduced as evidence.
Practical Scenarios & Illustrations
Prosecution witness says 'the accused wore a red shirt.' In police statement, they said 'the accused wore a blue shirt.' Section 145: defence shows witness the statement, asks 'does this say blue shirt?' Witness agrees; defence uses the inconsistency to attack credibility.
Questions & Answers
Yes — Section 145 allows cross-examination on prior written statements. If the police statement is inconsistent with trial testimony, defence can use it to contradict the witness under Section 145, provided they first show the witness the relevant parts and give them an opportunity to explain. The police statement itself is not substantive evidence (Section 162 CrPC), but it can be used to undermine the witness's credibility.
BSA Section 145 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) 2023 (Cross-Examination as to Previous Statements in Writing) directly governs how courts evaluate and admit evidence in civil and criminal proceedings. Section 145 is the foundational provision for using prior inconsistent statements to impeach a witness — one of the most powerful cross-examination tools.
**Two distinct uses:**
1. *Exploration without contradiction:* A witness can be cross-examined about prior written statements without showing... Advocates must ensure that evidence sought to be relied upon satisfies the conditions prescribed by this provision, failing which it may be excluded or accorded lesser weight by the court.