Former statements of witness may be proved to corroborate later testimony as to same fact
Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with former statements of witness may be proved to corroborate later testimony as to same fact. In order to corroborate the testimony of a witness, any former statement made by such witness relating to the same fact at or about the time when the fact took place, or before any authority legally competent to investigate the fact, may be proved. The Act came into force on 01 Sep 1872. Repealed by section 170 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
In order to corroborate the testimony of a witness, any former statement made by such witness relating to the same fact at or about the time when the fact took place, or before any authority legally competent to investigate the fact, may be proved.
Section 157, The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872).
Now in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
BSA 160 Former statements of witness may be proved to corroborate later testimony as to same fact 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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
Referred to by 1
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.
-
Ganga Singh vs State of M. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The testimony of a rape victim (prosecutrix) is a competent and reliable form of evidence under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act requiring no mandatory corroboration in material particulars as the prosecutrix is a victim, not an accomplice. Her evidence carries the same evidentiary weight as that of an injured witness in cases of physical violence. When the prosecutrix provides a clear, categorical account of rape that is corroborated by evidence of prior consistent statements (under Section 157 IEA), forensic evidence confirming intercourse, and absence of motive for false implication, a conviction for rape under Section 376 IPC can be sustained beyond reasonable doubt notwithstanding absence of physical injuries or gaps in peripheral details not subject to cross-examination. The legal definition of 'consent' under Section 375 IPC requires voluntary participation involving full exercise of intelligence based on knowledge of the significance and moral quality of the act with complete freedom of choice between resistance and assent; inability to physically resist forced intercourse negates any claim of consent. Defects in police investigation do not warrant acquittal if the prosecution has established guilt through reliable evidence beyond reasonable doubt; defects only merit acquittal if they create reasonable doubt regarding the core charge.
On this section: Corroboration of witness testimony; former statements of witness relating to same fact at/about time of occurrence may be proved for corroboration; applied to FIR and mother-in-law's statement
-
State of U. P vs Veer Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a person who makes a statement believed to be a dying declaration subsequently survives, such statement must be treated under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and not as a dying declaration under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Such statements can be used only for corroboration under Section 157 or for contradiction under Section 155 of the Evidence Act, and not as substantive evidence. Therefore, the acquittal of accused persons solely on the ground that they were not named in such a limited statement, when they were named in the FIR and other evidence of their involvement exists, constitutes a manifest error of law and is indefensible. Appellate courts must apply their mind objectively to all evidence on record and not dispose of appeals on erroneous or incomplete analysis of evidence.
On this section: Corroboration of previous statements; statements under Section 164 CrPC can be used for corroboration purposes
-
Ghulam Hassan Beigh vs Mohammad Maqbool Magrey
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: Corroboration - post-mortem report can be used to corroborate doctor's oral testimony
-
Ladi vs State of Haryana
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: Permits corroboration of witness by his/her previous statement.
-
State of Gujarat vs Visheshbhai Kali Chhaganbhai Gangavane
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 corroboration 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.
-
… (See Ramprasad vs State Of Maharashtra <sup>18</sup> ). The Apex Court in Kehar Singh and Ors. v. State (Delhi Administration<sup>19</sup> had held that a perusal of Sections 145, 155 and 157 of the Indian Evidence Act indicates that there are two purposes for which a previous statement can be used. They are i) for cross examination and contradiction and ii) for corroboration. When the defence wants to use the previous statement of a witness it would only be to contradict a witness and not to …
-
… Court while deciding in Kehar Singh did not take into account various material aspects including the right to fair trial and the right of cross-examination and thirdly, if the defence is not allowed to confront the prosecution witness with the affidavit filed before the commission, it will be in violation of Section 145, 155 and 157 of the Indian Evidence Act. - 32. Section 6 of the Commission of Inquiry Act provides as under: "No statement made by a person in the course of giving evidence before the Commission shall subject him to, or be used against him in, any civil or criminal proceeding except a prosecution for giving false …
-
… One of the appellants was found telling the villagers that he would teach a lesson to Krishna Kumar Das for his act of indiscretion in fleeing away with his daughter. The testimony of these witnesses is relevant under section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act and the prosecution can very well bank upon them to prove the initial part of the case. 25. Regarding delay in lodging the First Information Report, we would indicate that there was no delay in lodging a report with the police. After Krishna Kumar Das was abducted by the accused, …
Questions about Section 157
What have the courts held on Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act?
Ganga Singh vs State of M. P (04 Jul 2013) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Corroboration of witness testimony; former statements of witness relating to same fact at/about time of occurrence may be proved for corroboration; applied to FIR and mother-in-law's statement. Another 4 judgments on this section are set out below, 3 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2004 to 2022.
How do I find court cases under Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act?
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: IEA 157, section 157 IEA, section 157 of the Indian Evidence 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 Ganga Singh vs State of M. P (04 Jul 2013).
What should I read with Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act, and has it changed?
1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BSA 160 (Former statements of witness may be proved to corroborate later testimony as to same fact), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act come into force?
Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act, cited as IEA 157, came into force on 01 Sep 1872, having been enacted on 15 Mar 1872. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 32. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant1207 words
- 14. Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body of bodily feeling1080 words
- 92. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement809 words
- 8. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct773 words
- 65B. Admissibility of electronic records743 words
- 3. Interpretation-clause667 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. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item e51341fa-7528-4327-9a57-5d194e16db6f). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.