Indian Evidence Act, 1872 · Chapter X: Of the Examination of Witnesses
Section 154: Question by party to his own witness
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to matters and proceedings from before that date, as the repealing law provides.
In plain words
The court can allow the party who called a witness to ask that witness questions that could be asked in cross-examination by the other side (commonly when the witness turns hostile). That party can still rely on any part of the witness's evidence.
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
[(1)] The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions 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.] 2. Ins. by s. 9, ibid. (w.e.f. 16-4-2006.)
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
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 154
-
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…
-
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…
- Suraj v. State (Nct of Delhi)
- G.S.Raju v. CBI
- Jai Narayan v. State
- Antosh v. State
- Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi)
- Dev Raj v. State of Chhattisgarh
- Krishan v. State of Haryana
- Haradhan Das v. State of West Bengal
- Himanshu @ Chintu v. State of NCT of Delhi
- State of Maharashtra v. Abu Salem Abdul Kayyam Ansari and Ors.
- Prithi v. State of Haryana
- Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India
- T. Shankar Prasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh
- K. Anbazhagan v. The Superintendent of Police and Ors. Etc.
- Gura Singh v. The State of Rajasthan
- Varkey Joseph v. State of Kerala, Represented by the Circle Inspector of Police Puthencruzm, Kerala
- Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa
- Bhagwan Singh v. The State of Haryana
- Sat Pal v. Delhi Administration
- Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker v. State of Gujarat