Indian Evidence Act, 1872 · Chapter X: Of the Examination of Witnesses
Section 157: Former statements of witness may be proved to corroborate later testimony as to same fact
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to matters and proceedings from before that date, as the repealing law provides.
In plain words
To corroborate a witness's testimony, any earlier statement by the witness about the same fact, made at or about the time it happened, or before any authority legally competent to investigate it, can be proved.
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.
Official text
In order to corroborate the testimony of a witness, any former statement made by such witness 1. Subs. by Act 18 of 1872, s. 11, for “had” (w.e.f. 29-8-1872). 2. Clause (4) omitted by Act 4 of 2003, s. 3 (w.e.f. 31-12-2002).
relating to the same fact, at or about the time when the fact took place, or before any authority legally competent to investigate the fact, may be proved.
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
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.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 157
-
Narayan Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh
Whether the High Court erred in passing the impugned judgment relying on the confessional FIR filed by the appellant-accused himself and the medical evidence to uphold his conviction, however, altering it from s.302,…
-
Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
(i) What is the scope of section 174 CrPC and how is it different from investigation pursuant to filing of FIR under section 154 CrPC. (ii) Whether recourse to inquest proceedings under Section 174 of the CrPC by the…
-
Lalita v. Vishwanath & Ors.
Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court acquitting the respondents for the offence punishable u/ss.306, 498A, and 34 IPC; and incase the first informant dies before stepping into the…
-
Vijaya Singh & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand
Whether the Criminal Appeal filed by the Appellants challenging the conviction under Section 302/201 IPC can be entertained in the facts and circumstances of the case.
-
The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramjan Khan & Ors.
Whether the High Court was right in setting aside the conviction of the respondents-accused under Section 302, IPC read with Section 34, IPC.
- Tarak Nath Gupta & Anr v. State of Delhi & Anr
-
Rajesh & Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
In a case based on circumstantial evidence as there was no eyewitness to the kidnapping and murder, and where the prosecution’s case essentially turned upon the ‘recoveries’ made at the behest of the…
- P. Sasi v. CBI
- Harendra Rai v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
- The State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Dr. Maroti S/O Kashinath Pimpalkar
- Vijaya v. State Rep by the Inspector of Police
- Rajesh Prasad v. The State of Bihar and Anr. Etc.
- Mukesh Singh v. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi)
- Mohanlal v. The State of Punjab
- Suresh Chandra Jana v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
- Somasundaram @ Somu v. State Rep. by Dy. Comm. of Police
- S.P.S. Rathore v. C.B.I. & Anr.
- State of Rajasthan v. Roshan Khan & Ors.
- Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.
- Veer Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P.
- State of Rajasthan v. Balveer @ Balli and Anr.
- Putchalapalli Naresh Reddy v. State of A.P. and Etc.
- Charanjit & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.
- Ganga Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
- Hamza v. Muhammadkutty @ Mani & Ors.
- Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. The State of Maharashtra, Through Cbi, Bombay
- R. Shaji v. State of Kerala.
- Ranjit Singh and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh
- Sunder Singh v. State of Uttaranchal
- S. Arul Raja v. State of Tamil Nadu
- Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma v. State (Nct of Delhi)
- Gajula Surya Prakasarao v. State of Andhra Pradesh
- State of Maharashtra v. Ahmed Shaikh Babajan & Ors.
- Ramashray Yaday and Ors. v. State of Bihar
- State of U.P. v. Veer Singh and Ors.
- Sashi Jena and Ors. v. Khadal Swain and Anr.
- Mahabir Singh v. State of Haryana
- Lokeman Shah and Anr. Etc. Etc. v. State of West Bengal Etc. Etc.
- State of Karnataka v. Man Janna
- Ram Prasad v. State of Maharashtra
- State of Tamil Nadu Etc. v. Suresh (A-2) and Anr.
- The State of Gujarat v. Anirudhsing and Anr.
- Nathuni Yadav and Ors v. State of Bihar and Anr
- Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao and Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh
- Ranbir Yadav v. State of Bihar
- Bheru Singh S/0 Kalyan Singh v. State of Rajasthan
- Kehar Singh & Ors. v. State (Delhi Admn.)
- Sheikh Zakir v. State of Bihar
- Maqsoodan & Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh [And Vice-Versa]
- Dhanabal and Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu
- Damodarprasad Chandrikaprasad & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra
- Sahoo v. State of U.P.
- Dwarka Nath v. Shri Lal Chand and Others
- Ramratan and Others v. The State of Rajasthan
- Tahsildar Singh and Another v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
- Bhogilal Chunilal Pandya v. The State of Bombay
- Thomas Dana v. The State of Punjab
- Nisar Ali v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
- Bhagw An Singh v. The State of Punjab