Law and You >Procedural Laws > Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 >
Examination-in-Chief (S. 142 BNS)

The process of examining witnesses forms the backbone of any criminal trial, ensuring that facts are presented before the court in a fair and structured manner. One of the most crucial stages in the presentation of evidence is the examination-in-chief, wherein a witness is first questioned by the party who calls them. This stage serves to establish the foundational facts of the case and allows the witness to narrate their version of events in a coherent and uninterrupted manner. Unlike cross-examination, examination-in-chief is generally restricted from leading questions, thereby preserving the authenticity and spontaneity of the testimony.

Although the concept of examination-in-chief continues to be governed primarily by procedural and evidentiary principles, its application must now be understood in the broader context of the reformed legal regime introduced alongside the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA). The integration of updated procedural laws and emphasis on efficiency, transparency, and victim-centric justice has a direct impact on how witness examination is conducted in modern courts. This article seeks to explore the concept, scope, and legal framework of examination-in-chief under the evolving Indian criminal justice system, highlighting its importance in ensuring a fair trial and the effective administration of justice.

What is Examination in Chief?

Examination-in-chief is the first stage of witness examination in a court trial, where the party who calls the witness (prosecution or defence) questions them to present their version of facts.

According to Section 142(1) BSA, the examination of a witness by the party who calls him shall be called his examination-in-chief. It is also referred to as direct examination and differs significantly from cross-examination and re-examination.

Characteristics of Examination in Chief:

• Conducted by the Calling Party: The examination-in-chief is carried out by the party who calls the witness—either the prosecution or the defence—under the BNS.
• Primary Purpose: Its main objective is to place relevant facts before the court and build the foundation of the party’s case through the witness’s testimony i.e. to present the facts.
• Non-Leading Questions Rule: As per Section 146(2) BNS, leading questions are generally not allowed but they may be permitted with the court’s permission or for introductory/undisputed matters
• Narrative Form of Testimony: Witnesses are usually allowed to state facts in their own words, ensuring a natural and unbiased account of events.
• First Stage of Witness Examination: It is the initial stage of examining a witness, followed by cross-examination (by the opposite party)  and re-examination (if necessary)
• Limited Scope: Questions must relate only to relevant facts in issue and cannot go beyond what is necessary to establish the case.
• No Impeachment by Own Party: Generally, the party conducting examination-in-chief cannot challenge the credibility of their own witness (unless the witness is declared hostile).
• Documentary Evidence Introduction: Documents can be introduced and proved through the witness during this stage, subject to admissibility rules.
• Court’s Supervisory Role: The court ensures that questions are proper, rules of evidence are followed and proceedings remain fair and relevant

Thus, examination-in-chief is about presenting a clear, structured, and lawful version of facts through a witness, forming the backbone of the case.

Objectives of Examination in Chief:

• To Present the Case Narrative: The primary objective is to present the party’s version of facts through the witness in a logical and coherent manner before the court.
• To Establish Relevant Facts: It aims to bring on record all material and relevant facts necessary to prove the case, in accordance with the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• To Build the Foundation of the Case: Examination-in-chief lays the evidentiary foundation upon which the entire case rests, setting the stage for further examination.
• To Introduce Evidence: It enables the party to introduce oral and documentary evidence through the witness, ensuring that such evidence becomes part of the official record.
• To Ensure Clarity and Understanding: By allowing the witness to explain facts in their own words, it helps the court clearly understand the sequence of events.
• To Support Legal Claims or Charges: The testimony given helps in substantiating allegations, claims, or defences raised by the party.
• To Maintain Fairness in Trial: By restricting leading questions and ensuring proper procedure, it promotes a fair and unbiased presentation of evidence.
• To Prepare for Cross-Examination: Another objective is to present the witness’s testimony in a way that can withstand cross-examination by the opposing party.

Thus, the objective of examination-in-chief is to systematically present truthful, relevant, and admissible evidence through a witness to support a party’s case in court.

Importance of Examination in Chief:

Examination-in-chief holds fundamental importance in a trial as it forms the foundation upon which a party’s entire case is built. It is during this stage that a witness first presents their account of the facts, allowing the court to understand the sequence of events from the perspective of the party calling the witness. Governed by principles laid down in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), this stage ensures that testimony is given in a fair and unbiased manner, primarily through non-leading questions. It also provides the opportunity to introduce relevant oral and documentary evidence, thereby placing crucial material on record. A well-conducted examination-in-chief enhances the credibility of the witness and strengthens the case, while also preparing the groundwork for cross-examination. Ultimately, it plays a vital role in assisting the court in discovering the truth and delivering justice.

Key Sections of BSA Associated with Examination in Chief:

The concept of Examination-in-Chief under Indian law is governed by several important provisions of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA). The key sections associated with it are:

• Section 142 BSA – Examination of Witnesses: This section defines three stages of witness examination namely (1) Examination-in-chief , (2) Cross-examination, and (3) Re-examination. It specifically states that examination-in-chief is the examination of a witness by the party who calls them.
• Section 143 BSA – Order of Examinations: This section lays down the sequence: First, Examination-in-chief, then cross-examination and last re-examination with permission of the Court. It explains the scope and order in which these examinations must be conducted.
• Section 146 BSA – Leading Questions: The Section defines what a leading question is—one that suggests the answer within the question itself. The Section provides that leading questions are generally not allowed in examination-in-chief, except with the court’s permission or for introductory or undisputed matters.  Section clarifies that leading questions are freely allowed in cross-examination, distinguishing it from examination-in-chief.
• Section 148 BSA – Cross-Examination as to Previous Statements: Although primarily related to cross-examination, it becomes relevant because statements made in examination-in-chief can be tested or contradicted under this section.
• Section 157 BSA – Question by Party to His Own Witness: It allows a party, with the court’s permission, to cross-examine its own witness (hostile witness), which can arise after examination-in-chief.

These Sections form the procedural backbone for presenting witness evidence in courts.

Techniques for Conducting an Effective Examination-in-Chief:

• Careful Preparation of the Witness: A lawyer should thoroughly prepare the witness in advance by familiarizing them with the facts, sequence of events, and possible areas of questioning—without coaching or influencing their testimony. This ensures confidence and clarity in court.
• Use of Simple and Clear Questions: Questions should be short, simple, and easy to understand, enabling the witness to respond naturally. Complex or confusing questions may weaken the impact of the testimony.
• Avoid Leading Questions: In line with the BSA, leading questions should generally be avoided. Instead, use open-ended questions like “What happened next?” to allow the witness to narrate facts independently.
• Follow a Logical Sequence: Arrange questions in a chronological or logical order so the testimony unfolds like a clear story. This helps the judge easily follow and understand the case.
• Focus on Relevant Facts Only: Limit questions to material and relevant facts in issue. Irrelevant details can distract from the core case and may be objected to.
• Encourage Natural Narration: Allow the witness to speak in their own words rather than interrupting frequently. This improves credibility and makes the testimony more convincing.
• Clarify Important Facts: If the witness’s answer is unclear or incomplete, it is essential to ask follow-up questions to clarify the testimony.
• Introduce Documents Properly: Use the witness to identify and prove documents at the appropriate stage, ensuring compliance with evidentiary rules.
• Maintain Courtroom Etiquette: Ask questions respectfully, avoid arguing with the witness, and maintain a professional tone throughout the examination.
• Control the Pace of Examination: Proceed at a steady and controlled pace, giving the witness enough time to think and answer, while keeping the examination concise and focused.
• Anticipate Cross-Examination: Frame questions in a way that minimizes weaknesses and prepares the witness for possible cross-examination challenges.

Thus, an effective examination-in-chief is about clarity, structure, and fairness, ensuring that the witness presents a credible and coherent account that supports the case.

Legal Pitfalls in Examination-in-Chief:

• Use of Leading Questions: One of the most common errors is asking leading questions, which suggest the answer. Under the BSA, such questions are generally prohibited in examination-in-chief unless permitted by the court. Improper use may lead to objections and loss of credibility.
• Introducing Irrelevant or Inadmissible Evidence: Asking questions that bring out irrelevant facts or inadmissible evidence can result in objections and exclusion of testimony, weakening the overall case.
• Coaching or Tutoring the Witness: If it appears that the witness has been coached or rehearsed excessively, the court may doubt their credibility, and the testimony may lose evidentiary value.
• Lack of Proper Structure: A disorganized examination without a logical sequence of questions can confuse the court and dilute the impact of the witness’s testimony.
• Failure to Establish Foundation: Not properly establishing basic facts (identity, context, connection to the case) can make the testimony incomplete or unreliable.
• Overloading the Witness: Asking too many questions or covering excessive details may lead to contradictions, confusion, or fatigue, which can be exploited during cross-examination.
• Failure to Prove Documents Properly: Merely referring to documents without formally proving them through the witness can render them inadmissible.
• Allowing Volunteered or Harmful Statements: Witnesses may sometimes volunteer unnecessary or damaging information, which can harm the case if not carefully controlled.
• Not Anticipating Cross-Examination: Failure to identify and address weak points in advance may expose the witness to damaging cross-examination.
• Contradictions with Previous Statements: If the witness’s testimony contradicts prior statements, it can be challenged under provisions of the BSA, reducing reliability.

Avoiding these pitfalls is essential to ensure that examination-in-chief remains clear, credible, and legally sound, thereby strengthening the case and assisting the court in arriving at the truth.

Unfavourable Witnesses and Examination in Chief:

Unfavourable witnesses present a unique challenge during Examination-in-Chief, as their testimony may not fully support—or may even harm—the case of the party who calls them. Handling such witnesses requires careful strategy within the framework of Evidence Act.

An unfavourable witness is one who does not support the case of the party calling them, or gives answers that are inconsistent, evasive, or contrary to expectations. Such a witness is not automatically “hostile,” but may become so if their conduct justifies it. During examination-in-chief, the party calling the witness cannot normally challenge their own witness’s credibility and has to rely on non-leading questions. In such case calling party can request the court to declare the witness hostile if necessary.

To handle such witnesses ask controlled and precise questions to limit harmful responses, focus on undisputed or neutral facts, avoid giving the witness opportunity to elaborate unnecessarily and be prepared to seek permission under Section 157 BSA if the witness turns adverse. Proper handling of unfavourable witnesses ensures that damage to the case is minimized, useful portions of testimony are still extracted and the integrity of the trial process is maintained

Thus, dealing with unfavourable witnesses in examination-in-chief requires a balance of legal awareness, courtroom strategy, and careful questioning, ensuring that the party retains control while remaining within procedural limits.

Hostile Witness and Examination in Chief:

A hostile witness is one who goes against the case of the party who called them, or shows an unwillingness to tell the truth, or gives testimony inconsistent with prior statements. Such a witness is formally recognized as “hostile” only when the court permits it. Under Section 157 BSA, the court may allow a party to cross-examine its own witness. This permission is granted when the witness appears adverse or hostile

Initially, the witness is examined normally through non-leading questions. However, if the witness starts giving adverse answers, or resiles from earlier statements, the party may request the court to declare the witness hostile. Once declared hostile, the party can ask leading questions, can challenge the witness’s credibility and can use the nature of questioning becomes similar to cross-examination. This is a significant departure from the usual rules of examination-in-chief.

Testimony of a hostile witness is not automatically rejected. The court may accept reliable portions of their evidence. Their prior statements can be used to contradict them

Handling a hostile witness properly is crucial because it prevents serious damage to the case, allows the party to recover control over the testimony and helps the court assess the truth more accurately.

Judicial Analysis:

In Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker vs State of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1563 case, the Supreme Court observed that a clever witness in his examination in-chief faithfully conforms to what he stated earlier to the police or in the committing court, but in the cross-examination introduces statements in a subtle way contradicting in effect what he stated in the examination-in-chief. The Supreme Court also held that the Court can permit a person, who calls a witness, to put questions to him which might be put in the cross-examination at any stage of the examination of the witness, provided it takes care to give an opportunity to the accused to cross- examine him on the answers elicited which do not find place in the examination-in-chief.

In Mandvi Co‑Op Bank Ltd v. Nimesh B. Thakore – Supreme Court of India, AIR 2010 SC 1402 case, where in dishonoured cheque trials under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 where evidence was taken by affidavit as permitted under Section 145 of the Act after the 2002 amendments. The various High Courts had held that both the complainant and the accused should, on being summoned, depose orally afresh in examination‑in‑chief before being cross‑examined, even if they had already filed affidavits. The Supreme Court examined the scope of Section 145 EIA (S. 148 BSA) and related procedural rights. The Supreme Court held that once a witness’s evidence has been submitted via affidavit, it effectively constitutes their examination-in-chief, and the accused does not have an automatic right to insist on a fresh oral examination-in-chief before cross-examination. This ruling emphasized that the accused’s rights are preserved through the opportunity for cross-examination, while unnecessary repetition of examination-in-chief would only delay proceedings. The decision underscores the principle that examination-in-chief should be efficient, fair, and structured, allowing the court to rely on written testimony while maintaining the accused’s ability to challenge it through cross-examination.

Conclusion:

Examination-in-chief under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 is a fundamental stage in the trial process, providing a structured platform for witnesses to present facts in support of the party that calls them. By emphasizing non-leading questions, relevance, and orderly narration, the Adhiniyam seeks to ensure that testimony is reliable, clear, and legally admissible. It also establishes safeguards for handling unfavourable or hostile witnesses, allowing the court to maintain fairness while uncovering the truth. Properly conducted examination-in-chief strengthens the credibility of evidence, facilitates a coherent understanding of events, and ultimately contributes to the delivery of justice.

For More Articles on the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 Click Here

For More Articles Other Acts Click Here