Section 148 BSA – 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.

Corresponding provisions — source comparison

Reference in this text	Correspondence / source caption
148. Cross-examination as to previous statements in writing.	145. Cross-examination as to previous statements in writing. Source ↗

Comments

Contradicting a witness Earlier police and magistrate statements are not substantive proof. A material omission can be used as a contradiction if the prescribed procedure is followed, and does not automatically discredit the entire testimony. — Waris v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2026 INSC 1050.

Omissions and contradictions An omission in the FIR is material only if it affects the substance of the case. To prove a contradiction through an earlier police statement, the witness’s attention must be drawn to the relevant part through the prescribed procedure. — Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 INSC 525.

Exculpatory police statement An earlier exculpatory police account is not substantive evidence of its contents. The Court distinguished its limited use in contradiction from evidence given by the accused as a witness. — P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025 INSC 725.

Proving a previous contradiction The witness must be confronted with the relevant earlier passage and, where necessary, the contradiction must be proved through the investigating officer. The trial court had not followed that procedure. — Vinod Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2025 INSC 209.

Limited use of first report An FIR is not substantive proof of the facts it records. Subject to the statutory requirements, the maker’s earlier account may be used to contradict or corroborate the maker. — Lalita v. Vishwanath, 2025 INSC 173.

Material omissions The Court considered proved omissions that materially altered the witness’s later version. A contradiction must be brought on record through the prescribed procedure. — Ramu Appa Mahapatar v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 INSC 147.

Proving a contradiction The witness must be directed to the precise earlier statement relied on. If the witness does not admit it, the relevant part must be proved through the proper witness. — Anees v. State Govt of NCT, AIR 2024 SC 2297.

Earlier statements and limited uses An earlier magistrate statement is not substantive proof. It may corroborate or contradict the maker where the applicable conditions are met, while a police statement is subject to the narrower procedural restriction. — State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Maroti Kashinath Pimpalkar, AIR 2022 SC 5595.

Judgments on Section 148

SEP 202624THU

LOK 2026 (9) SC 242 · Supreme Court of India

Waris v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Equivalent citations: 2026 INSC 1050

SubjectCriminal Law

JudgesJustice Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, Justice Vijay Bishnoi, Justice JJJ

ActsProtection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012

This 2026 Supreme Court of India judgment affirms the conviction of an appellant for the sexual assault and murder of his six-year-old stepdaughter. The Court validates a curative cross-examination process, ensuring the defendant’s right to a fair trial was preserved after initial procedural deficiencies. Central…

APR 201719WED

LOK 2017 (4) SC 1910 · Supreme Court of India

Balakram v. State Of Uttarakhand & Ors.

Subject–

Judges–

ActsIndian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 145)

JAN 20166WED

LOK 2016 (1) SC 611 · Supreme Court of India

Krishan Chander v. State Of Delhi

Subject–

JudgesJustice T.S. Thakur, Justice V. Gopala Gowda

ActsIndian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 145)

AUG 201229WED

LOK 2012 (8) SC 295 · Supreme Court of India

Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab @ Abu Mujahid v. State of Maharashtra

Subject–

JudgesJustice Chandramauli Kr. Prasad

ActsPrevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (Sections 32 and 52); Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Sections 24, 32 and 145); Evidence Act, 1872 (Sections 24, 25, 27 and 32(1)); Constitution of India (Articles 20(3), 21, 22(1) and 39A)

APR 20004TUE

LOK 2000 (4) SC 41 · Supreme Court of India

Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana

Equivalent citations: AIR 2000 SC 1833 : 2000 (2) Crimes 150 : 2000 (106) CriLJ 2212 : 2000 (2) CCR 23 : 2000 (4) JT 114 : 2000 (2) RecentCR 545 : 2000 (3) Supreme 320 : 2000 (3) Scale 42 : 2000 (4) SCC 484 : 2000 SCC(Cr) 991 : 2000 (3) SLT 406 : 2000 (4) SRJ 504 : 2000 (1) JCC(SC) 410 : 2000 (1) SCC(SC) 410

Subject–

JudgesJustice D.P. Wadhwa, Justice Ruma Pal

ActsIndian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 145)

MAY 19994TUE

LOK 1999 (5) SC 45 · Supreme Court of India

State of Kerala v. Babu

Equivalent citations: AIR 1999 SC 2161 : 1999 (4) SCC 621 : 1999 SCC(Cr) 611 : 1999 (105) CriLJ 3491 : 1999 (2) KLT 301 (SC),

Subject–

JudgesJustice S.N.Hegde, G.B.Pattanaik

ActsIndian Evidence Act, 1872 (Sections 123, 124 and 145)