The lawyer must always show the witness the earlier written statement before asking any questions about it.

The law specifically allows cross-examination about the prior statement without showing it first; the requirement to show relevant portions applies only when the lawyer intends to formally prove the writing to contradict the witness.

Any past statement automatically counts as a 'contradiction' under this section.

Courts, notably in Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P., have clarified that mere omissions or differences in emphasis are not always true contradictions — the statement must genuinely conflict with the courtroom testimony to trigger this procedure.

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

Section 148

Cross-examination as to previous statements in writing

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.§

Why this exists

This rule comes from a long-standing principle in English common law, developed in the early 19th century (notably in the 'Queen's Case', 1820), which balanced two needs: letting lawyers test a witness's credibility by referring to their prior statements, while also being fair to the witness by giving them a chance to explain any apparent inconsistency before it is used against them formally. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 adopted this as Section 145, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 has re-enacted it as Section 148 without substantive change, continuing this balance of effective cross-examination and procedural fairness.

How courts read it

Indian courts have long relied on the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P. (1959), which examined the predecessor Section 145 of the Evidence Act. The Court clarified what counts as a real 'contradiction' between a witness's court testimony and an earlier statement (such as one given to police), distinguishing between omissions and actual inconsistencies, and confirming that the witness must be given a fair opportunity to explain the specific passage before it is used to discredit them. This case remains the guiding authority for how the 'calling attention' requirement in the second part of the section is to be applied.

Common misconceptions

Myth: The lawyer must always show the witness the earlier written statement before asking any questions about it.
Fact: The law specifically allows cross-examination about the prior statement without showing it first; the requirement to show relevant portions applies only when the lawyer intends to formally prove the writing to contradict the witness.
Myth: Any past statement automatically counts as a 'contradiction' under this section.
Fact: Courts, notably in Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P., have clarified that mere omissions or differences in emphasis are not always true contradictions — the statement must genuinely conflict with the courtroom testimony to trigger this procedure.