Examination-in-chief is the first examination of a witness by the party who has called that witness to testify, for the purpose of eliciting facts favourable to that party's case. Under Indian law, examination-in-chief is defined in Section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Section 142 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023).
Legal definition
Section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides:
Section 137: The examination of a witness by the party who calls him shall be called his examination-in-chief.
Section 138 prescribes the order of examination:
Section 138: Witnesses shall be first examined-in-chief, then (if the adverse party so desires) cross-examined, then (if the party calling him so desires) re-examined. The examination and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts but the cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his examination-in-chief.
Section 142 of the Indian Evidence Act further restricts the use of leading questions during examination-in-chief, providing that leading questions must not be asked in examination-in-chief without the permission of the court.
New law equivalent: Under the BSA, 2023, Section 142 defines examination-in-chief in identical terms to Section 137 IEA. Section 143 BSA corresponds to Section 138 IEA regarding the order of examinations. The rules on leading questions are retained in corresponding sections of the BSA.
How courts have interpreted this term
Golla Yelugu Govindu v. State of Andhra Pradesh [AIR 2008 SC 2008]
The Supreme Court held that the purpose of examination-in-chief is to elicit material facts relevant to the case from the witness. The examination must be conducted within the bounds of relevancy, and the questions must not be leading in nature unless permitted by the court.
Varkey Joseph v. State of Kerala [AIR 1993 SC 1892]
The Supreme Court held that what is stated by a witness in examination-in-chief is the substantive evidence. If a witness makes a statement in examination-in-chief and denies it in cross-examination, the court must assess the credibility of the witness based on the totality of the deposition.
Tomaso Bruno v. State of U.P. [(2015) 7 SCC 178]
The Supreme Court discussed the evidential value of examination-in-chief and held that when a witness's testimony in examination-in-chief is consistent, coherent, and corroborated by other evidence, it forms a reliable basis for conviction. Minor contradictions in cross-examination do not demolish a credible examination-in-chief.
Why this matters
Examination-in-chief is the foundational stage of witness testimony in any trial. It is during this stage that the party calling the witness presents the substantive facts upon which it relies. The quality and thoroughness of the examination-in-chief often determines the ultimate persuasive value of the witness's testimony.
For practitioners, the restriction on leading questions during examination-in-chief is a significant skill challenge. Unlike cross-examination, where leading questions are permitted and indeed the primary tool, examination-in-chief requires the advocate to elicit facts through open-ended questions that allow the witness to narrate in their own words. This demands careful witness preparation and a structured approach to questioning.
The distinction between examination-in-chief and cross-examination in terms of permissible scope is also crucial. Examination-in-chief must relate to relevant facts, but the party is limited to facts that are within the witness's direct knowledge. Cross-examination, by contrast, can extend to facts not covered in the chief examination and may include questions testing credibility, prior inconsistent statements, and general character.
Related terms
Sibling concepts:
Parent concept:
Related evidentiary concepts:
Frequently asked questions
Can leading questions be asked in examination-in-chief?
Generally, no. Section 142 of the Indian Evidence Act (corresponding section of BSA) provides that leading questions must not be asked in examination-in-chief without the permission of the court. However, the court may permit leading questions on introductory or undisputed facts, or on matters already sufficiently proved.
What is the difference between examination-in-chief and cross-examination?
Examination-in-chief is the examination of a witness by the party who calls them, to elicit favourable facts. Cross-examination is the examination by the opposing party, to test the truth of the testimony and challenge credibility. Leading questions are restricted in the former but permitted in the latter.
Can a witness be declared hostile during examination-in-chief?
Yes. If a witness makes statements adverse to the party calling them, the court may grant permission to that party to cross-examine their own witness. This is known as declaring the witness hostile, permitted under Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act (Section 159 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.