Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
Section 143
Order of examinations
(1) Witnesses shall be first examined-in-chief, then (if the adverse party so desires) cross-examined, then (if the party calling him so desires) re-examined.
(2) The examination-in-chief and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts, but the cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his examination-in- chief.
(3) The re-examination shall be directed to the explanation of matters referred to in cross-examination; and, if new matter is, by permission of the Court, introduced in re-examination, the adverse party may further cross-examine upon that matter.
Why this exists
This provision continues the structure from Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, carried forward largely unchanged into the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. The three-stage sequence — examination-in-chief, cross-examination, re-examination — is a foundational feature of adversarial trial procedure inherited from English common law. It ensures each side gets a fair, structured opportunity to present its version through a witness and to test the other side's version, while giving courts a mechanism to prevent surprise or unfairness when new issues arise late in the process.
How courts read it
Indian courts, interpreting the identical predecessor provision (Section 138 of the Evidence Act, 1872), have consistently held that cross-examination is a valuable right used to test credibility and can go beyond the examination-in-chief, but must still relate to matters relevant to the case. Courts have also emphasized that re-examination is not an opportunity to fill gaps left in examination-in-chief, but only to explain matters raised in cross-examination, with the safeguard of further cross-examination if genuinely new matter is permitted.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: Cross-examination can only ask about what was said in examination-in-chief.
Fact: The law specifically allows cross-examination to go beyond what was covered in examination-in-chief, as long as it relates to relevant facts. - Myth: Re-examination can be used to introduce any new evidence the lawyer forgot to ask about earlier.
Fact: Re-examination is meant only to explain matters raised in cross-examination; new topics require the court's permission, and if allowed, the other side can cross-examine on them too.