Indian Evidence Act, 1872 · Chapter X: Of the Examination of Witnesses
Section 145: Cross-examination as to previous statements in writing
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to offences and proceedings from before that date.
In plain words
A witness can be cross-examined about their earlier written statements on relevant matters without being shown them. But to contradict the witness with the writing, their attention must first be drawn to the parts that will be used to contradict them.
A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.
Official 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.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 145
-
Neeraj Kumar @ Neeraj Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors.
Issue arose whether the courts below, in the attending facts and circumstances, justified in dismissing the application for summoning additional accused.
-
Raj Kumar @ Bheema v. State of NCT of Delhi
Appellant-accused was convicted for the offence punishable u/s.302 IPC. The High Court further affirmed the order on sentence dated 20.02.2021, whereby the accused-appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for…
-
Narayan Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh
Whether the High Court erred in passing the impugned judgment relying on the confessional FIR filed by the appellant-accused himself and the medical evidence to uphold his conviction, however, altering it from s.302,…
-
P Krishna Mohan Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Whether the statement of an accused u/s.161, Cr.P.C implicating co-accused can be looked into qua such co-accused at the stage of anticipatory bail or regular bail; whether the High Court exercised its discretion in a…
-
K.P. Tamilmaran v. The State by Deputy Superintendent of Police
Whether the High Court was justified in upholding the conviction and sentence of A-15 under Sections 217, 218, Penal Code, 1860 and ss.3(2)(i), 4, SC/ST Act, 1989 and modifying the conviction and sentence of A-14, while…
-
The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Balveer Singh
Does the Evidence Act, 1872 prescribe any particular age as a determinative factor to treat a witness to be a competent witness; Does the Evidence Act treat evidence of a child on the same footing as any other witness;…
-
Lalita v. Vishwanath & Ors.
Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court acquitting the respondents for the offence punishable u/ss.306, 498A, and 34 IPC; and incase the first informant dies before stepping into the…
-
Mahabir & Ors. v. State of Haryana
Whether the High Court committed any error in passing the impugned judgment and order of conviction in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction u/s.401 r/w. s.397 of the CrPC; Whether Proviso to s.372 of CrPC creates a…
-
Goverdhan & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh
The two accused-appellants and their father-the third accused, were convicted by the trial court u/s.302 r/w s.34 IPC for assaulting a person with deadly weapons causing his death. High Court upheld the conviction of…
-
The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramjan Khan & Ors.
Whether the High Court was right in setting aside the conviction of the respondents-accused under Section 302, IPC read with Section 34, IPC.
-
Shyam Narayan Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Etc.
Whether the High Court fell in error in remanding the matter to Trial Court and giving liberty to the accused to cross-examine a prosecution witness and allowing the prosecution to lead further evidence in the form of…
-
Manik & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra
Appellants-convicts are members of the police force and the allegation against them is misuse and abuse of their powers, in resorting to custodial torture of victim-S and tampering with evidence.
-
Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement
Validity of arrest of the appellant under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; scope and ambit of the Courts to examine the legality of the arrest under Section 19; whether the Court while…
-
Ratnu Yadav v. The State of Chhattisgarh
Whether the Courts below erred in convicting appellant u/s.302, IPC for committing the murder of his stepmother by relying upon the alleged extra-judicial confession of appellant before PW1 and ‘last seen together’…
-
Dharmendra Kumar @ Dhamma v. State of Madhya Pradesh
High Court if justified in upholding conviction and sentence of the appellant under ss. 302/34 IPC; the contradictions or discrepancies and the absence of blood group classification or inconclusive FSL results on the…
-
Anees v. The State Govt. of NCT
Murder of appellant-accused’s wife in their house in which the appellant, deceased and their 5 year old daughter lived. s.106, Evidence Act, 1872 was invoked and the appellant was convicted u/s.302, IPC for the murder.…
-
Alauddin & Ors. v. The State of Assam & Anr.
Matter pertains to correctness of the order convicting the appellants for the offences punishable u/ss. 302/149 IPC when the statements in evidence full of omissions and contradictions and the evidence of last seen…
-
Shailesh Kumar v. State of U.P. (Now State of Uttarakhand)
What is the goal of investigation and what is the role of investigating officer; Are s.172 CrPC and ss. 145 & 161 of the Evidence Act to be read in consonance with each other; Can a General Diary entry precede the…
-
Birbal Nath v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors
Whether the High Court was justified in acquitting the accused for the major offences u/ss. 302 and 307 IPC, and convicting them only for the offences u/ss. 147, 148, 323, 324, 325/149 and reducing their sentences to…
-
Union of India & Others v. Jogeshwar Swain
Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the dismissal order of the constable found guilty of misconduct, since it was vitiated by infraction of the prescribed procedure as also was based on no evidence.
-
Munna Pandey v. State of Bihar
Whether the High Court erred in confirming the conviction and death sentence passed by trial court against appellant-accused for offences punishable u/ss.302, 376, IPC and s.4, POCSO Act, 2012, despite serious lapses in…
- Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei
- Mohd. Abdullah Azam Khan v. Nawab Kazim Ali Khan
- The State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Dr. Maroti S/O Kashinath Pimpalkar
- Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey & Ors.
- Rajesh Prasad v. The State of Bihar and Anr. Etc.
- Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu
- Raveen Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh
- Mukesh Singh v. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi)
- State of Uttarakhand v. Darshan Singh
- P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement
- Durgabai Deshmukh Memorial Sr. Sec. School & Anr. v. Vasu Sena & Anr.
- Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat and Another
- Varinder Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh
- Pradeep Bisoi @ Ranjit Bisoi v. The State of Odisha
- Hemudan Nanbha Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat
- Mohanlal v. The State of Punjab
- Balakram v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors.
- Bhagwan Jagannath Markad & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra
- V. K. Mishra&Anr. v. State of Utiarakhand &Anr.
- State of Karnataka v. Smt. Suvarnamma & Anr.
- Adambhai Sulemanbhai Ajmeri & Ors. v. State of Gujarat
- Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar & Anr.
- Charanjit & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.
- Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab @ Abu Mujahid v. State of Maharashtra
- Sudevanand v. State Through CBI
- Saquib Abdul Hameed Nachan v. State of Maharashtra
- Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma v. State (Nct of Delhi)
- Md. Ankoos & Ors. v. The Public Prosecutor, H!Gh Court of A.P.
- Three Cheers Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. C.E.S.C. Ltd.
- Vinay D. Nagar v. State of Rajasthan
- Gannmani Anasuya and Ors. v. Parvatini Amarendra Chowdhary and Ors.
- State of NCT of Delhi v. Ravi Kant Sharma and Ors.
- Bishna@ Bhiswadeb Mahato and Ors. v. State of West Bengal
- Sidharth Etc. Etc. v. State of Bihar
- State (N.C.T. of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu@Afsan Guru
- Sangramsinh P. Gaekwad and Ors. v. Shantadevi P. Gaekwad (I) Thr. Lrs. and Ors.
- Shri Gopal and Anr . v. Subhash and Ors.
- Chaudhari Ramji Bhai Narasangbhai v. State of Gujarat and Ors.
- Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar and Ors.
- Munshi Prasad and Ors. v. State of Bihar
- Sukhdev Yadav and Ors. v. State of Bihar
- Mahabir Singh v. State of Haryana
- State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Chaganlal Raghana and Ors.
- Makhan Lal Bangal v. Manas Bhunia and Ors.
- Rajender Singh and Ors. v. The State of Bihar
- Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana
- Leela Ram (D) Through Duli Chand v. State of Haryana and Anr.
- Rammi @ Rameshwar Etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh
- State of Kerala v. Babu and Ors.
- State of U.P. v. Abdul and Ors.
- Vijender v. The State of Delhi
- Chinnamal v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.
- Binay Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar
- Bandlamuddi Atchuta Ramaiah and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh
- C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh
- Shamshul Kanwar v. State of U.P.
- Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab
- Bheru Singh S/0 Kalyan Singh v. State of Rajasthan
- Varkey Joseph v. State of Kerala, Represented by the Circle Inspector of Police Puthencruzm, Kerala
- Malkiat Singh and Ors v. State of Punjab