VoxJuris
Home › Acts › Evidence Act › Chapter X › Section 145

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 · Chapter X: Of the Examination of Witnesses

Section 145: Cross-examination as to previous statements in writing

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to offences and proceedings from before that date.

In plain words

A witness can be cross-examined about their earlier written statements on relevant matters without being shown them. But to contradict the witness with the writing, their attention must first be drawn to the parts that will be used to contradict them.

A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.

Read the in-depth explanation, with key Supreme Court rulings ↓

Official text

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.

Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here.

Understanding this section

Section 145 lets a witness be cross-examined about a previous written statement without showing it to him. But if the cross-examiner wants to contradict him with it, the witness's attention must be drawn to the parts used for contradiction before the writing is proved. This is the procedure for using police statements to contradict witnesses.

The procedure for contradiction

  • Put to the witness the specific part of his earlier statement that contradicts or omits what he now says.
  • If he admits it, the contradiction is on record and its effect is weighed.
  • If he denies it, mark the passage and record it in the deposition.
  • Prove the passage through the person who recorded it, such as the investigating officer, by drawing his attention to the marked part.

Link with section 162 CrPC

Statements to the police under section 161 of the CrPC can be used only to contradict a witness in the manner provided by section 145. A significant omission can amount to a contradiction. Without following this procedure, the earlier statement cannot be used.

Minor discrepancies

Not every variation discredits a witness. Minor discrepancies are natural; courts look for contradictions that go to the root of the case.

Key Supreme Court rulings

  • The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Balveer Singh 2025 INSC 261

    Set out the procedure: the witness "must be first confronted with that part of its previous statement that omits or contradicts the improvisation"; if he denies it, the passage is marked and later proved through the investigating officer.

  • Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P. AIR 1959 SC 1012

    The leading Constitution Bench ruling on using police statements to contradict witnesses under section 162 of the CrPC read with section 145; a former statement helps only if it has the potency to discredit the present one.

  • Goverdhan v. State of Chhattisgarh 2025 INSC 47

    Cautioned against attaching too much importance to minor discrepancies in witnesses' evidence, since witnesses cannot be expected to have photographic memories.

Common mistakes

  • Using a police statement to contradict without first putting it to the witness.
  • Treating every minor variation as a fatal contradiction.

Read with: Section 162 CrPC, Section 155 Evidence Act, Section 148 BSA

Prepared with AI assistance as a study aid. Every ruling listed was checked against the Supreme Court's own judgments on this site, and quoted words appear in those judgments; linked names open the full judgment. Read the judgments themselves before relying on them. Not legal advice.

Supreme Court judgments citing the section 145