Cross-examination is the examination of a witness by the adverse party, conducted after the examination-in-chief, for the purpose of testing the truth of the testimony, discrediting the witness, or eliciting facts favourable to the cross-examining party. Under Indian law, cross-examination is defined in Section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Section 142 of the BSA, 2023).
Legal definition
Section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides:
Section 137: The examination of a witness by the adverse party shall be called his cross-examination.
Section 138 establishes the scope:
Section 138: ...the cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his examination-in-chief.
Section 146 details the permissible objectives of cross-examination:
Section 146: When a witness is cross-examined, he may, in addition to the questions hereinbefore referred to, be asked any questions which tend — (1) to test his veracity, (2) to discover who he is and what is his position in life, or (3) to shake his credit, by injuring his character, although the answer to such questions might tend directly or indirectly to criminate him or might expose or tend directly or indirectly to expose him to a penalty or forfeiture.
New law equivalent: Under the BSA, 2023, Section 142 defines cross-examination identically. Section 143 covers the order and scope. Section 150 BSA corresponds to Section 146 IEA regarding the lawful purposes of cross-examination.
How courts have interpreted this term
State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram [(2006) 12 SCC 254]
The Supreme Court held that the right of cross-examination is a fundamental right of the accused and an indispensable part of the principles of natural justice. Denial of the right to cross-examine a witness whose testimony is relied upon by the prosecution vitiates the trial.
Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P. [AIR 1959 SC 1012]
The Supreme Court held that if a party wishes to contradict a witness on material facts, that party must put the contradictory version to the witness during cross-examination. Failure to cross-examine on a material point amounts to acceptance of that fact. This is the rule in Browne v. Dunn, adopted in Indian jurisprudence.
State of U.P. v. Nahar Singh [(1998) 3 SCC 561]
The Supreme Court held that the absence of cross-examination on a material aspect of the evidence leads to the inference that the evidence has been accepted. If the defence fails to challenge a prosecution witness's testimony on a critical point, the court is entitled to accept that testimony.
Why this matters
Cross-examination is universally regarded as the most powerful weapon in the arsenal of advocacy. It is the primary mechanism through which the truthfulness, reliability, and credibility of a witness is tested. The right to cross-examine is so fundamental that its denial constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice and Article 21 of the Constitution.
For practitioners, effective cross-examination requires meticulous preparation. The advocate must be familiar with the witness's prior statements (Section 161/162 CrPC statements, FIR, medical reports), identify inconsistencies, and construct a line of questioning that exposes weaknesses without reinforcing the witness's testimony. The permission to ask leading questions during cross-examination is a significant tactical advantage.
A common error is the failure to put the defence version to prosecution witnesses during cross-examination. Under the rule in Browne v. Dunn, as adopted by the Supreme Court, if the defence intends to argue a particular version of events at a later stage, that version must be suggested to the relevant prosecution witness during cross-examination. Failure to do so may lead the court to reject the defence version as an afterthought.
Related terms
Sibling concept:
Parent concept:
Related evidentiary concepts:
Frequently asked questions
Can leading questions be asked in cross-examination?
Yes. Unlike examination-in-chief, leading questions are the standard tool in cross-examination. Section 143 of the Indian Evidence Act (corresponding section of BSA) permits leading questions during cross-examination without restriction.
Is cross-examination mandatory?
No. Cross-examination is a right of the adverse party, not an obligation. The adverse party may choose not to cross-examine a witness. However, failure to cross-examine on a material point may lead to an adverse inference — that the testimony on that point is accepted as true.
Can the scope of cross-examination exceed the examination-in-chief?
Yes. Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act (Section 143 BSA) expressly provides that cross-examination need not be confined to the facts testified in examination-in-chief. The cross-examiner may ask about any relevant fact and may also test the credibility and character of the witness under Section 146 (Section 150 BSA).
This entry is part of the Veritect Indian Legal Glossary, a comprehensive reference of Indian legal terminology grounded in statutory text and judicial interpretation.
Last updated: 2026-03-27. Veritect provides this content for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.