BSA Section 148: Cross-Examination as to Previous Statements (2026)
What Section 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) does: it lets a witness be cross-examined on earlier statements they put in writing, and sets the rule for contradicting a witness with that writing. It carries forward Section 145 of the old Indian Evidence Act. Last verified October 2026.
Explainer · Evidence Law · BSA
Section 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), the evidence law in force since 1 July 2024, is a cross-examination tool. It lets a cross-examiner question a witness about a statement the witness earlier made in writing, or which was written down, that is relevant to the case, and it fixes a fair procedure for contradicting the witness with that writing. In short, you can confront a witness with their own earlier words. This explainer sets out what the section covers, the two steps it requires, how it maps to Section 145 of the old Indian Evidence Act, and the leading case law. Last verified October 2026.
- What it is: Section 148 of the BSA lets a witness be cross-examined on a statement they earlier made in writing, and sets the rule for contradicting them with that writing.
- Two steps: you can question on the writing without showing or proving it, but to contradict the witness you must first draw their attention to the exact parts used.
- Old section: it carries forward Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
- Not an offence: it is a rule of evidence, with no punishment or cognizable, bailable or triable status of its own.
01The short answer
Section 148 of the BSA deals with cross-examination on previous statements that a witness made in writing. It has two limbs. First, the cross-examiner may question the witness about such a written statement, relevant to the matters in question, without showing the writing to the witness and without proving it. Second, if the plan is to contradict the witness using the writing, the witness must first have their attention drawn to the exact parts to be used, before that writing can be proved.
It carries forward Section 145 of the old Indian Evidence Act. It is a rule of procedure in evidence, so it has no punishment and no cognizable, bailable or triable status of its own.
02What Section 148 covers
Section 148 applies when a witness has, at some earlier time, made a statement in writing, or made a statement that was reduced to writing by someone else, such as a complaint, an affidavit, a letter, or a statement recorded during investigation. If that earlier statement is relevant to the matters in question in the case, the opposing side can use it in cross-examination.
The idea in one line
A witness who says one thing in court but wrote something different earlier can be confronted with the earlier writing, so the court can see the inconsistency and judge the witness accordingly.
The section covers only previous statements in writing or reduced to writing. The handling of a purely oral previous statement follows the general cross-examination rules. Section 148 is the provision that controls how a written one is used.
03The two steps it requires
The section builds in a careful, two-stage process so the exercise is fair to the witness:
- Questioning without showing the writing. The cross-examiner may ask the witness about the earlier written statement without first handing over the document and without proving it. This lets the examiner test the witness freely before the witness has sight of the paper.
- Contradiction only after notice. If the examiner intends to actually contradict the witness by the writing, that is, to put the writing in as proof of the inconsistency, the witness must first have their attention called to those specific parts of the writing that will be used against them. Only then can the writing be proved.
The second step protects the witness. Before a document is used to brand the witness inconsistent, the witness gets a chance to look at the relevant passage and explain it. Skipping that step can make the contradiction unusable.
04Why it matters in a trial
Credibility is often decided on consistency. A witness whose court testimony clashes with what they wrote earlier loses weight in the judge's eyes. Section 148 is the main gateway for bringing such a clash on record in a lawful way.
It is used constantly in both civil and criminal trials: to confront a witness with a prior affidavit, a written complaint, a notice, or a statement recorded during investigation. Done correctly, a contradiction under Section 148 can be the turning point of a cross-examination. Done carelessly, without drawing the witness's attention to the exact portion, it can be excluded. This connects with the wider rules on testing a witness, including the declaration of a hostile witness and how accomplice evidence is treated.
05Old to new: Evidence Act 145 to BSA 148
Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act is now Section 148 of the BSA. The wording and the two-step scheme are carried over, so the doctrine is unchanged. Only the number and the drafting are modern.
| Point | Old law (Indian Evidence Act) | New law (BSA) |
|---|---|---|
| Cross-examination on previous written statements | Section 145 | Section 148 |
| Impeaching the credit of a witness | Section 155 | Section 158 |
| Who may testify (competence) | Section 118 | Section 124 |
Because the text is carried over, judgments decided under Section 145 of the Evidence Act continue to guide how Section 148 of the BSA is read.
06Key case law
The leading authorities were decided under Section 145 of the Evidence Act and continue to apply:
- Tahsildar Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh (1959): the Supreme Court explained the scope of Section 145 and its link with the use of statements recorded during police investigation. It held that such a statement can be used to contradict the witness, but only in the manner the section lays down.
- V.K. Mishra v State of Uttarakhand (2015): the Supreme Court set out, step by step, how a witness must be confronted with a previous statement, the relevant part being put to the witness and marked, before it can be used to contradict them.
The common thread is procedure: the contradiction only works if the exact passage is put to the witness first.
07A practical note
Three practical points follow from the section:
- Identify the exact line or passage of the earlier writing you want to use, and put it to the witness before you seek to prove the document.
- Keep the previous written statement properly on record, for example the affidavit, complaint, notice, or investigation statement, so it can be proved when the time comes.
- Remember that the section is about contradiction. A previous statement used only to refresh memory or to corroborate follows different provisions.
Because Section 148 is a rule of evidence, it carries no penalty by itself. Its effect is on the weight the court gives the witness.
08Where Claw fits
Claw is an all-in-one legaltech platform for Indian advocates, law firms, and corporate legal teams, combining AI-based case search, an AI legal assistant (Legal GPT), case management, and compliance automation across all Indian courts and tribunals.
How a contradiction under Section 148, or the old Section 145, plays out in practice depends on how courts have treated similar confrontations and the procedure they insist on. Claw lets you look that up across more than 30 crore judgments with results in under 5 seconds, with Supreme Court rulings from 1950 and High Court rulings from 1990 to the latest orders. You can also follow a live trial, with its orders and hearings, by party or advocate name across 9,102 courts, benches and forums.
Claw does not use the documents you upload to train its AI models. Create a free Claw account to find rulings on how a witness may be cross-examined and contradicted on a previous written statement, and to track a pending matter. To search the wider body of law, see case search across Indian courts.
09Sources and further reading
- India Code (official text of the BSA, 2023): indiacode.nic.in
- PRS Legislative Research (BSA overview and comparison): prsindia.org
- Section 148, BSA (bare text for reference): courtbook.in
- Claw: clawlaw.in
This explainer is general information, not legal advice. The law changes through amendments and judgments, so check the current text and take advice from counsel before you act.
10Frequently asked questions
What is Section 148 of the BSA?
Section 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 governs cross-examination of a witness on previous statements they made in writing. It lets the examiner question the witness on the writing without showing it, and requires the witness's attention to be drawn to the specific parts before the writing is used to contradict them. It restates Section 145 of the old Indian Evidence Act.
Which old section does BSA 148 replace?
It carries forward Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The wording and the two-step scheme are carried over, so case law under Section 145 still guides how Section 148 is read.
Do I have to show the witness the document first?
Not to question them on it. The examiner may cross-examine the witness about the earlier written statement without showing or proving the writing. But if the aim is to contradict the witness with the writing, the witness's attention must first be called to the exact parts to be used, before the writing is proved.
Can a police or investigation statement be used under Section 148?
Yes, a statement recorded during investigation can be used to contradict a witness, but only in the manner the section lays down, as the Supreme Court explained in Tahsildar Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh. The exact portion must be put to the witness first.
Is Section 148 an offence with a punishment?
No. It is a rule of evidence about how cross-examination is conducted. It has no punishment or cognizable, bailable or triable status of its own. Those belong to the offence being tried in the matter.
Can I find judgments on cross-examination with previous statements in Claw?
Yes. Claw lets you search more than 30 crore judgments on how courts apply Section 148, or the old Section 145, by party or advocate, with results in under 5 seconds, and track orders and hearings across 9,102 courts, benches and forums. It researches and tracks the matter but does not give legal advice.