Section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act: Contemporary Dimensions of Examination-in-Chief

Section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act: Contemporary Dimensions of Examination-in-Chief

1. Introduction

Section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (“IEA”) establishes the first of three statutorily recognised stages in the oral testimony of a witness—examination-in-chief. Although the provision is couched in apparently modest language, its jurisprudential significance is profound: it determines the evidentiary foundation on which cross-examination and re-examination rest, shapes the rights of parties, and affects the court’s capacity to ascertain truth. This article undertakes a doctrinal and case-law analysis of Section 137, situating it within the broader statutory framework (Sections 138–155 IEA and Section 311 CrPC) and within contemporary judicial practice in India.

2. Statutory Framework

2.1 Text of Sections 137 & 138

Section 137 IEA classifies testimony into (i) examination-in-chief, (ii) cross-examination, and (iii) re-examination.[1] Section 138 prescribes the compulsory order of these stages and limits re-examination to clarifying matters raised in cross-examination, subject to the court’s leave.[2]

2.2 Ancillary Provisions

  • Sections 142–143: regulation of leading questions.
  • Section 145: use of prior statements for contradiction.
  • Section 154: power to permit the calling party to cross-examine its own witness (hostile witness doctrine).
  • Section 155: impeachment of credit.
  • Section 311 CrPC: judicial power to recall or summon witnesses in aid of “just decision”.

3. Theoretical Foundations of Examination-in-Chief

Examination-in-chief serves four inter-related purposes: (a) eliciting material facts relevant under Sections 5–55 IEA; (b) presenting the proponent’s narrative in a coherent and admissible form; (c) enabling the opposition’s right of confrontation and cross-examination; and (d) furnishing the trial judge with an evidentiary base to evaluate credibility. The stage is therefore not a mere procedural formality but a constitutional component of fair trial rights (Article 21) when read with the principles articulated in Jayendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra[3].

4. Doctrinal Issues and Judicial Elaboration

4.1 “Tendering” a Witness without Examination-in-Chief

In Sukhwant Singh v. State of Punjab the Supreme Court deprecated the practice, frequent under the pre-1955 CrPC regime, of the prosecution merely “tendering” a witness for cross-examination without first examining him in chief, holding that such tender amounts to abandoning the witness and contravenes Section 138 IEA.[4] Post-Sukhwant Singh, trial courts are obliged to insist on at least a minimal examination-in-chief, failing which the witness’s evidence lacks probative value and deprives the adverse party of a coherent target for cross-examination.

4.2 Affidavit Evidence as Examination-in-Chief

The 2002 amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure allow affidavits to substitute oral examination-in-chief in civil trials. High Courts have clarified the limits of this practice. In Brij Prakash Gupta v. Ashwini Kumar, the Delhi High Court held that (i) affidavits must confine themselves to facts within the deponent’s personal knowledge; (ii) the deponent must attend for cross-examination; and (iii) objections to admissibility may be recorded and decided later.[5] In the criminal sphere, Mandvi Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Nimesh Thakore rejected the argument that, upon summoning under Section 145(2) NI Act, a complainant who had filed an affidavit must again orally depose in examination-in-chief; the affidavit itself suffices, and the accused may proceed straight to cross-examination.[6]

4.3 Scope of Questions and Leading Questions

Section 142 prohibits leading questions in examination-in-chief unless the court permits. Courts routinely allow leading questions on introductory or undisputed matters to save time, a practice endorsed in Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat, which also urged trial judges to defer rulings on objections until judgment to avoid fragmentation of testimony.[7]

4.4 Adverse Party and Cross-Examination: Who May Cross?

Only an “adverse party” may cross-examine, but adversity is functional, not formal. Thus, co-defendants may cross-examine one another when their interests conflict, as recognised in Sri Mohamed Ziaulla v. Sorgra Begum and followed by the Uttarakhand High Court in Gama Prasad v. Lalchand.[8] Conversely, where no conflict exists, the right does not arise.

4.5 Hostile Witnesses and Section 154

When a witness diverges from the calling party’s case during examination-in-chief (or even in cross-examination), the party may, with leave, cross-examine its own witness under Section 154. The controlling principles—extensive judicial discretion and the distinction between “hostile” and merely “unfavourable” witnesses—were crystallised in Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration.[9]

4.6 Recall, Re-Examination, and the Court’s Plenary Powers

Section 311 CrPC empowers the court at any stage to recall or summon witnesses, reinforcing the court’s duty to secure the truth. High Courts have repeatedly harmonised Section 311 with Section 138’s structure: recall ordinarily entails a limited re-examination confined to new matters, followed by a corresponding opportunity of further cross-examination (e.g. State of Sikkim v. Prem Singh Tamang).[10]

5. Evidentiary Rigor and Practical Application

5.1 Criminal Trials: Quality of Examination-in-Chief

Recent Supreme Court decisions illustrate how inadequate examination-in-chief can fatally undermine prosecutions:

  • Mangat Ram v. State of Haryana—inconsistent witness narratives and absence of clear testimony regarding dowry demands led to acquittal.[11]
  • Raja v. State of Karnataka—contradictions in the prosecutrix’s chief examination, exposed in cross-examination, vitiated the conviction.[12]
  • State of Rajasthan v. Teja Ram—credibility of dying declarations upheld because examination-in-chief of medical witnesses and recording officers was thorough and withstand cross-scrutiny.[13]

5.2 Civil Litigation: Affidavit Evidence and Electronic Platforms

With virtual hearings and affidavit evidence becoming routine post-COVID-19, courts emphasise strict compliance with Section 137. The Supreme Court in Mohammed Abdul Wahid v. Nilofer reiterated that affidavits amount to examination-in-chief and that the opposing party’s right to cross-examination remains inviolate.[14]

5.3 Consequences of Omitted Cross-Examination

Where a fact stated in examination-in-chief is left unchallenged, courts may treat it as admitted (Kunwar v. State of U.P.).[15] This doctrine incentivises diligent cross-examination and underscores why a structured, admissible examination-in-chief is indispensable.

6. Reform Considerations

Although Section 137’s text has endured for 150 years, evolving trial practices suggest targeted reforms:

  1. Digital Witness Examination Protocols: statutory recognition of video-conferencing, authenticating identity, and administering oaths electronically.
  2. Unified Objection Handling: codifying the Bipin Panchal mechanism to postpone rulings on evidentiary objections across all trial courts to streamline chief examination.
  3. Training for Commissioners: where affidavits replace oral chief examination, commissioners must be trained to detect inadmissible or irrelevant material before affidavits are taken on record.

7. Conclusion

Examination-in-chief under Section 137 is the gateway through which facts enter the judicial record. Contemporary Indian jurisprudence—spanning issues from tendering witnesses to affidavit evidence, hostile witnesses, and digital testimony— demonstrates that adherence to the statutory architecture of Sections 137–138 is not a mere procedural nicety but a substantive guarantee of fair trial and reliable fact-finding. Robust, relevant, and properly structured examination-in-chief facilitates effective cross-examination, reduces appellate reversals, and advances the justice system’s truth-seeking mandate.

Footnotes

  1. Indian Evidence Act, 1872, s 137.
  2. Indian Evidence Act, 1872, s 138.
  3. Jayendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 7 SCC 104.
  4. Sukhwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995) Supreme Court.
  5. Brij Prakash Gupta v. Ashwini Kumar, Delhi HC, 2020.
  6. Mandvi Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Nimesh B. Thakore (2010) 3 SCC 83.
  7. Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat (2001) SCC (Cri) 417.
  8. Sri Mohamed Ziaulla v. Sorgra Begum, Kar HC, 1997; Gama Prasad v. Lalchand, Utt HC, 2019.
  9. Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration (1976) 1 SCC 727.
  10. State of Sikkim v. Prem Singh Tamang, Sikkim HC, 2016.
  11. Mangat Ram v. State of Haryana (2014) 12 SCC 595.
  12. Raja v. State of Karnataka (2016) SCC Online SC 1117.
  13. State of Rajasthan v. Teja Ram (1999) 3 SCC 507.
  14. Mohammed Abdul Wahid v. Nilofer, SC, 2023.
  15. Kunwar v. State of U.P. (1993) 3 AWC 1305 (All HC).