Sections 145, 154 and 155 IEA vs Sections 148, 157 and 158 BSA — Hostile Witness, Previous Statements and Impeaching Credit

In India, since 1 July 2024 a witness who departs from an earlier statement is handled under Sections 148, 157 and 158 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), which replace Sections 145, 154 and 155 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA). The operative words are unchanged apart from minor drafting edits; one illustration to Section 158 is recast.

At a glance

What changed

• Identical — Section 148 (IEA s.145). Every word of the rule is the same. The India Code IEA text carries a footnote pointing to CrPC s.172 (police diaries); the Gazette BSA text has none.
• Minor edit — Section 157(1) (IEA s.154(1)). "to put any questions to him" becomes "to put any question to him".
• Identical — Section 157(2) (IEA s.154(2)). The party permitted under sub-section (1) may still "rely on any part of the evidence of such witness". In the IEA this was inserted by Act 2 of 2006, s.9 (w.e.f. 16 April 2006).
• Minor edit — Section 158 clauses (a) to (c) (IEA s.155(1) to (3)). Relettered and begun in lower case; words otherwise the same. The IEA's clause (4) had already been omitted by Act 4 of 2003, s.3 (w.e.f. 31 December 2002); the BSA has no fourth clause.
• Identical — the Explanation to Section 158, on a witness who calls another unworthy of credit.
• Modified — illustration (b) to Section 158. IEA: "A is indicted for the murder of B … on a previous occasion, C said that the wound was not given by A or in his presence." BSA: "A is accused of the murder of B … on a previous occasion, C said that B, when dying, did not declare that A had given B the wound of which he died." The earlier statement now contradicts what C reports about the dying declaration, not a fact about the wounding. Both end "The evidence is admissible." Illustration (a) is unchanged in substance.
• Minor edit — the neighbour, Section 181 BNSS (CrPC s.162). The heading becomes "Statements to police and use thereof". The proviso points to BSA s.148 instead of IEA s.145; sub-section (2) points to BSA s.26(a) and the proviso to BSA s.23(2) instead of IEA ss.32(1) and 27. The Explanation on omissions is word for word the same.

Statutory text (relevant extract)

Extract — Section 148, BSA (IEA s.145 reads the same):

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.

Extract — Section 158, BSA, opening words and clause (c):

The credit of a witness may be impeached in the following ways by the adverse party, or, with the consent of the Court, by the party who calls him— … (c) by proof of former statements inconsistent with any part of his evidence which is liable to be contradicted.

Extract — proviso to Section 181(1), BNSS:

Provided that 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;

How it works — the steps

A witness called by one side departs from what he told the police, a Magistrate or anyone else earlier. The sections work in sequence.

1. Examination-in-chief by the party calling him (BSA s.142(1)). Leading questions may not be asked in it, if objected to, without the Court's permission (s.146(2)).
2. Permission to cross-examine one's own witness (s.157(1)). The grant is a discretion; the section does not require the witness to be "declared hostile" (see Sat Pal and Shivkumar below).
3. Cross-examining on the previous statement (s.148). The witness may be questioned about a previous written statement without being shown it. To contradict him with the writing, his attention must be drawn to the exact parts relied on before the writing is proved, so that he can explain.
4. Proving the contradiction. If he admits the earlier statement, no more is needed. If he denies it, the part used must be proved — for a police statement, usually through the officer who recorded it (Alauddin).
5. Impeaching credit (s.158) by (a) evidence of people who believe him unworthy of credit, (b) proof of a bribe or other corrupt inducement, or (c) proof of former inconsistent statements.
6. Weighing what remains. Section 157(2) keeps the whole of the evidence available; the Court decides which part it believes.

The Act's illustrations to s.158. In (a), C says he delivered goods to B; proof that C earlier said he had not "is admissible". In (b), C reports B's dying declaration naming A; proof that C earlier said B made no such declaration "is admissible".

Neighbouring provisions: BSA s.156 (IEA s.153) bars contradicting answers that only injure character, save a denied previous conviction or partiality. BSA s.160 (IEA s.157) lets a former statement be proved to corroborate a witness — the opposite use from s.158(c). BNSS s.180 (CrPC s.161) governs how police record the statements that s.181 then restricts.

What this means in practice

For the prosecutor. Seek permission under s.157(1) only where there is material showing the witness is not speaking the truth or has turned against the prosecution; Shivkumar criticised requests made "for no ostensible reason". To contradict with a police statement, the prosecution needs the Court's permission and the part used must be "duly proved" (s.181(1) BNSS).

For the defence advocate. The accused needs no permission to use a duly proved part of a police statement to contradict a prosecution witness. Put the specific passage, have the Court record which portion was shown, and prove it through the investigating officer if the witness denies it. An omission counts only if significant and relevant in context (Explanation to s.181). The prosecution may then use any part of the statement in re-examination, but only to explain matters raised in cross-examination.

For the trial court. Mark the portion shown to the witness and record the marking in the deposition (Alauddin). A police statement cannot be used to corroborate a witness (Sat Pal).

In civil cases. Sections 148, 157 and 158 are not limited to criminal trials; illustration (a) to s.158 is a suit for the price of goods. BNSS s.181 is confined to statements to the police in a criminal investigation.

Judgments that still matter

BSA ss.148, 157 and 158 repeat the operative words of IEA ss.145, 154 and 155, and BNSS s.181 repeats the substance of CrPC s.162. On a reading of the text, judgments construing those words remain relevant.

Sat Pal v. Delhi Administration, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 11 (1975 INSC 233) — 29 September 1975. R. S. Sarkaria J. delivered the judgment of a two-Judge Bench in a bribery trap case where the panch witnesses were cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. The Court held that the Evidence Act avoids the terms "hostile" and "adverse". The s.154 discretion "is unqualified and untrammeled, and is apart from any question of "hostility"", and orders should avoid expressions such as "declared hostile" (report pp. 26–28; no paragraph numbers). The witness's evidence "cannot, as a matter of law, be treated as washed off the record altogether"; the judge decides whether he is wholly discredited or can be believed in part (report p. 30). Police statements may be used only to contradict a prosecution witness in the manner indicated in s.145, "and for no other purpose" (report p. 31). The appellant was acquitted. Why it matters now: s.157(1) repeats s.154(1) save "any question", and s.157(2), added to the IEA in 2006, states that the party may rely on any part of the evidence.

Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana, Supreme Court, 9 December 1975. P. K. Goswami J. delivered the judgment of a three-Judge Bench. Permission to the Public Prosecutor to cross-examine the complainant-witness under s.154 "does not completely efface his evidence", which "remains admissible in the trial"; a conviction may rest on it if corroborated by other reliable evidence (report p. 923). The appeal was dismissed. Our corpus copy prints no report citation, so none is given.

Alauddin & Ors. v. State of Assam & Anr., [2024] 6 S.C.R. 20 (2024 INSC 376) — 3 May 2024. Abhay S. Oka J. delivered the judgment of a two-Judge Bench. The prosecution may use a police statement to contradict its own witness only with the Court's prior permission, and the part used must be duly proved (para 6). Every omission is not a contradiction; it becomes one only if it meets the test in the Explanation to s.162 (para 7). To contradict, the witness must be shown the specific part; if he denies it, it is proved through the investigating officer. "The object of this requirement in Section 145 of the Evidence Act of confronting the witness by showing him the relevant part of his prior statement is to give the witness a chance to explain the contradiction." (para 8). Only a material contradiction or omission justifies disbelieving a witness under s.155(3) (para 9). Calling Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P. a "locus classicus" (para 10), the Court found the trial court had not marked the portions put to the witnesses and acquitted the appellants (para 18). Why it matters now: BNSS s.181 now cross-refers to BSA s.148, which repeats s.145.

Shivkumar @ Baleshwar Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh, Supreme Court, 14 October 2025 (Criminal Appeal No. 4502 of 2025). K. V. Viswanathan J. delivered the judgment of a two-Judge Bench in an appeal from a 2019 trial, so the Evidence Act applied. The Court described the discretion as arising under "Section 154 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 157 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023)". Before a witness is declared hostile there must be material showing he is not speaking the truth or has shown hostility, and "Small or insignificant omissions cannot be the basis for treating the witnesses hostile" (para 9). Relying on Bhagwan Singh, it held that a witness declared hostile is not unreliable for that reason alone (para 12), and dismissed the appeal (para 26). Why it matters now: it is a post-2024 Supreme Court statement naming Section 157 BSA as the successor provision.

Which law applies to your case

Section 170(2) BSA provides that any trial, inquiry, proceeding or appeal pending immediately before the Adhiniyam came into force (1 July 2024, S.O. 849(E) of 23 February 2024) is dealt with under the Indian Evidence Act "as if this Adhiniyam had not come into force"; Section 531(2)(a) BNSS likewise keeps a pending trial under the CrPC, including s.162. On a reading of those provisions, a proceeding begun after that date applies BSA ss.148, 157 and 158 and BNSS s.181. With the operative words unchanged, the difference is in numbering. See which law applies to an offence before 1 July 2024.

Frequently asked questions

Which BSA sections replace Sections 145, 154 and 155 of the Evidence Act? Section 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 replaces Section 145 (cross-examination as to previous statements in writing), Section 157 replaces Section 154 (question by a party to his own witness) and Section 158 replaces Section 155 (impeaching credit). They apply from 1 July 2024, and their operative words are the same as the Evidence Act's apart from minor drafting edits.

Does the BSA use the word "hostile witness"? No. Section 157(1) BSA, like Section 154 of the Evidence Act, lets the Court in its discretion permit the person who calls a witness to put any question which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. In Sat Pal v. Delhi Administration ([1976] 2 S.C.R. 11) the Supreme Court said that discretion is apart from any question of hostility and advised against orders saying a witness is "declared hostile".

Is the evidence of a hostile witness wiped out? No. Section 157(2) BSA says the party permitted to cross-examine its own witness may still rely on any part of that witness's evidence. In Sat Pal the Supreme Court held that such evidence cannot, as a matter of law, be treated as washed off the record, and in Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana (9 December 1975) it held that a conviction may rest on it if corroborated by other reliable evidence.

How is a witness contradicted with a police statement under the BNSS? Section 181(1) BNSS bars use of a statement recorded by the police during investigation except as its proviso allows: the accused, and with the Court's permission the prosecution, may use any duly proved part of it to contradict a prosecution witness in the manner provided by Section 148 BSA. The witness's attention must be called to the parts relied on before the writing is proved.

What are the ways to impeach a witness's credit under Section 158 BSA? Section 158 BSA lists three: evidence of persons who, from their knowledge of the witness, believe him unworthy of credit; proof that the witness was bribed, accepted the offer of a bribe or received any other corrupt inducement; and proof of former statements inconsistent with any part of his evidence that is liable to be contradicted. The adverse party may use them, and the party calling the witness may do so with the Court's consent.

Can an omission in a police statement be used as a contradiction? Yes, if it is significant. The Explanation to Section 181 BNSS, repeating the Explanation to Section 162 CrPC, says an omission may amount to contradiction if it appears significant and otherwise relevant in context, and that this is a question of fact. In Alauddin v. State of Assam (2024 INSC 376, para 7) the Supreme Court held that every omission is not a contradiction.

Can the prosecution get permission to cross-examine its own witness for any small inconsistency? Section 157(1) BSA leaves the permission to the Court's discretion. In Shivkumar @ Baleshwar Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh (14 October 2025, para 9), construing Section 154 of the Evidence Act and identifying Section 157 BSA as its successor, the Supreme Court held that small or insignificant omissions cannot be the basis for treating a witness as hostile and that the discretion must not be exercised in a casual or routine manner.

Which Act applies to a trial pending on 1 July 2024? Section 170(2) BSA provides that a trial, inquiry or other proceeding pending immediately before the Adhiniyam came into force is dealt with under the Indian Evidence Act as if the BSA had not come into force. Such a trial applies Sections 145, 154 and 155 of the Evidence Act; because the BSA repeats their operative words, the practice is the same.

Related

• A witness turns hostile, an accomplice testifies — the scenario guide
• Section 161 CrPC vs Section 180 BNSS — examination of witnesses by police
• Section 164 CrPC vs BNSS — confessions and statements before a Magistrate
• Section 32 Evidence Act vs Section 26 BSA — dying declarations
• Section 114 Evidence Act vs Section 119 BSA — court presumptions
• Evidence Act to BSA — full section mapping table
• Section 162 CrPC vs Section 181 BNSS — Statements to Police and Their Use at Trial
• Section 165 IEA vs Section 168 BSA — Judge's Power to Put Questions or Order Production

Sources

• Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Gazette text): Sections 23, 26(a), 142, 146, 148, 149, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 and 170; commencement from footnote 1 to Section 1 of the official text.
• Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (India Code text): Sections 137, 145, 153, 154 and 155, with the amendment footnotes to Sections 145, 154 and 155.
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette text): Sections 180, 181 and 531(2)(a).
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (India Code text): Section 162.
• Judgments read in full text (Veritect Supreme Court corpus): Sat Pal v. Delhi Administration (1976_2_11_31_EN.md); Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana (1976_2_921_923_EN.md); Alauddin & Ors. v. State of Assam & Anr. (2024_6_20_35_EN.md); Shivkumar @ Baleshwar Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh (Diary_35976-2024_Judgment.md).

This page explains the statutory text and the judgments cited as they stand. It is not legal advice; for a specific case, consult an advocate.