Law of Evidence | Updated October 2026

Section 145 Evidence Act: Cross-Examination on Previous Written Statements

Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 governed the questioning of witnesses about earlier written statements. Its corresponding provision under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) is Section 148.

Current legal position: The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam came into force on 1 July 2024. Section 148 generally governs proceedings under the new law, subject to the savings and transitional provisions for proceedings already pending when the new law commenced.

What does Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act provide?

The provision permits a witness to be cross-examined about a previous statement made by that witness in writing or recorded in writing, provided the statement is relevant to the matter in dispute. The earlier writing need not initially be shown to the witness or proved merely to ask questions about it.

However, where a party intends to contradict the witness by that writing, the witness's attention must first be directed to the particular passages relied upon for contradiction, before the writing is proved.

Section 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

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.

The wording of Section 148 BSA substantially preserves the rule previously contained in Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act.

How the rule operates in cross-examination

Identify an earlier statement: Locate a relevant statement made or recorded in writing, such as a prior witness statement, letter or other record.
Question the witness: Ask about the earlier statement without necessarily producing the writing at the outset.
Confront the witness with a contradiction: If the writing is to be used to prove an inconsistency, draw attention to the specific portion before proving it.
Prove the contradiction: Establish the previous statement through the legally permissible mode of proof, subject to the rules applicable to the particular document.
Assess evidentiary significance: The court evaluates whether the inconsistency is material and what effect it has on credibility.

Illustration: Previous statement and trial testimony

Suppose a witness tells the court that the accused was present at a particular location. In an earlier written statement, the same witness stated that the accused was not there. Counsel may ask about the earlier statement. If counsel seeks to prove a contradiction using the document, the specific inconsistent passage must first be put to the witness.

A minor omission is not automatically a contradiction. Whether an omission is significant depends on its nature, context and the applicable rules of proof.

Police statements and case diaries

The original article referred to Section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 regarding police diaries. The corresponding provision under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is Section 192.

Section 192 BNSS regulates the maintenance and use of case diaries. Courts may call for such diaries to assist an inquiry or trial, but the diaries are not themselves substantive evidence merely because the court consults them. Section 192(5) specifically addresses the limited circumstances in which provisions concerning contradiction or refreshing memory apply.

Witness statements recorded during police investigation are also subject to the relevant restrictions and exceptions under Section 181 BNSS. Section 148 BSA must therefore be read together with the applicable criminal procedure provisions when a police-recorded statement is used for contradiction.

Important distinctions

Questioning is different from proving: A witness can be questioned about an earlier written statement without the writing first being proved; proof of contradiction requires the statutory safeguard.
Specific passages matter: The witness must have an opportunity to address the precise inconsistent portions.
Credibility is distinct from substantive proof: A prior inconsistent statement does not automatically establish that the earlier account is true.
Transitional cases: The applicable law should be determined by reference to the commencement and savings provisions, including Section 170 BSA.

Frequently asked questions

What is the new section corresponding to Section 145 of the Evidence Act?

Section 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

Must a prior written statement be shown before asking questions?

No. But if the writing is intended to be proved to contradict the witness, the witness must first be directed to the particular contradictory passages.

Can police case diaries be freely used as evidence?

No. Their use is restricted by Section 192 BNSS, and police-recorded witness statements are subject to additional procedural safeguards.

Official legal references

Legal information is provided for general reference. The relevant statutory text, procedural setting and judicial decisions should be checked for any particular case.