Cross examination as to previous statements in writing
Section 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 deals with 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; The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
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.
Section 148, The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Act 47 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Evidence Act
IEA 145 Cross-examination as to previous statements in writing Text carried over almost unchanged 100%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Md. Ankoos vs Pub. Pros. High Court of A. P. Hyderabad
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 145, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When appellants have been expressly charged under Section 148 IPC for rioting with deadly weapons and acquitted thereof by both the trial court and the appellate court, they cannot be legally convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC which creates constructive liability based on membership of unlawful assembly with common object. The common substratum necessary for both Sections 148 and 149 (i.e., the unlawful assembly with common object) must exist for Section 149 constructive liability to apply. Further, a High Court cannot reverse a trial court's judgment of acquittal by using case diary statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to verify witness credibility or overcome contradictions without following the mandatory procedure under Section 172 Cr.P.C. and Section 145 Indian Evidence Act.
On this section: Contradicting a witness - proper procedure to be followed when contradicting a statement recorded under Section 161
-
Ghulam Hassan Beigh vs Mohammad Maqbool Magrey
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 145, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the stage of framing charges under Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the trial court must apply its judicial mind and sift the evidence placed before it by the prosecution for the limited purpose of determining whether a prima facie case has been made out. The court cannot conduct a mini-trial or rely solely on post-mortem reports to determine the nexus between alleged assault and death. The post-mortem report is not substantive evidence but merely a previous statement of the doctor; only the doctor's oral testimony in court constitutes substantive evidence. Whether the cause of death has any nexus with the alleged assault can only be determined after recording oral evidence of eye witnesses and the medical officer as an expert witness. The determination of whether a case falls under Section 302 IPC (murder) or Section 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) must be made only after evaluation of the entire oral evidence led by both prosecution and defence at the end of the trial, not at the charge-framing stage. If a prima facie case is made out based on the materials placed by the prosecution, even if those materials give rise to strong suspicion, the charge should be framed in accordance with the case put up by the prosecution, and the accused should be given the opportunity to defend against the higher charge at trial.
On this section: Contradicting previous statements - post-mortem report can be used to contradict doctor's statement in witness box
-
Manik vs The State of Maharashtra Home Department Secretary
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 145, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a dead body is recovered and subjected to autopsy and necrotomic evidence is adduced to establish cause of death, failure to prove that the dead body is of the person allegedly murdered by the accused must have fatal and adverse consequence on the prosecution case. The case of an untraceable dead body is different from a case where the dead body is traced and evidence is adduced to prove the identity of the deceased. In the latter case, upon failure to prove identity, the prosecution cannot be permitted to advance a case that the dead body is untraceable. However, this principle applies only when the prosecution itself has put forth the case that the dead body was recovered. In such circumstances, when once identification of the dead body as that of the alleged victim based on fingerprint test is reversed by the High Court, in the absence of appeal by the State or the victim, it cannot be said that the dead body is that of the alleged victim, either for holding the accused guilty of murder under Section 302 IPC or under Section 304 IPC. (Justice C.T. Ravikumar's view, which represents the majority position on this specific issue)
On this section: Cross-examination as to previous statements; applied to examine omissions in PW-1's testimony
-
Ladi vs State of Haryana
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 145, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An accused has an indefeasible right to fair trial and equal opportunity to prove his innocence. Electronically recorded conversations are admissible as documentary evidence under the amended Indian Evidence Act and Information Technology Act 2000 when: (1) the conversation is relevant to matters in issue; (2) the voice is properly identified; and (3) the accuracy of the recorded conversation is proved by eliminating the possibility of tampering, erasure, addition or manipulation. Courts must exercise their powers under Section 311 CrPC and Section 165 Evidence Act to examine witnesses and elicit evidence essential to just decision, taking a participatory role in trials to arrive at truth. When a witness has not been cross-examined on material evidence that subsequently emerges, courts should grant opportunity for re-examination to ensure fair trial.
On this section: Cited for the principle that previous statements can be used for contradiction during cross-examination and questions may be put to test veracity of witness.
-
State of Gujarat vs Visheshbhai Kali Chhaganbhai Gangavane
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 145, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A confessional statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not substantive evidence but a former statement made before a legally competent authority. Such statements can be used for corroboration or contradiction of witness testimony and can be admitted and exhibited without the Magistrate who recorded them being examined as a witness. The correct legal framework for admitting such judicial records is Section 80 of the Indian Evidence Act, which creates a presumption of genuineness and proper recording, not Section 89 which applies only to secondary evidence cases under Sections 65(a) and 66.
On this section: Governs contradiction of witnesses; Section 164 statements can be used for this purpose
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… when any witness is called for the prosecution in such inquiry or trial whose statement has been reduced into writing as aforesaid, any part of his statement, if duly proved, may be used by the accused, and with the permission of the Court, by the prosecution, to contradict such witness in the manner provided by section 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023; and when any part of such statement is so used, any part thereof may also be used in the reexamination of such witness, but for the purpose only of explaining any matter referred to in his crossexamination. [ (2 )](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/116159390/) Nothing in …
Questions about Section 148
What have the courts held on Section 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam?
Md. Ankoos vs Pub. Pros. High Court of A. P. Hyderabad (06 Nov 2009) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IEA 145, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Contradicting a witness - proper procedure to be followed when contradicting a statement recorded under Section 161. Another 4 judgments on this section are set out below, 3 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2009 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BSA 148, section 148 BSA, section 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. People searching for it also type 148 bsa act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 5 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Md. Ankoos vs Pub. Pros. High Court of A. P. Hyderabad (06 Nov 2009).
What should I read with Section 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, and has it changed?
3 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. It carries forward IEA 145 (Cross-examination as to previous statements in writing), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam come into force?
Section 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, commonly called hostile witness, and cited as BSA 148, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 26. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant1128 words
- 12. Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body or bodily feeling1076 words
- 95. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement815 words
- 2. Definitions794 words
- 6. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct773 words
- 63. Admissibility of electronic records764 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.