Examination-in-Chief, Cross-Examination and Re-Examination (ss. 140–143) — BSA (Law of Evidence) Notes

Examination-in-Chief, Cross-Examination and Re-Examination (ss. 140–143)

The nineteenth-century jurist John Henry Wigmore called cross-examination “beyond any doubt the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth.” A witness in examination-in-chief may sound flawless — coached, confident, complete. It is only when the other side is let loose on him, free to ask leading questions and probe his credit, that the truth is tested. The three stages of examination are simply the courtroom’s method of running every witness through that engine, in a fixed order.

Every witness is taken through up to three stages, always in the same order, by different sides for different purposes. The definitions are in s. 142 [IEA s. 137] and the order in s. 143 [IEA s. 138].

A. The three stages (s. 142)

Examination-in-chief — the examination of a witness by the party who called him. Here the calling party draws out the witness’s story. Because the witness is friendly, leading questions are barred (s. 146) — you must not put words in your own witness’s mouth.
Cross-examination — the examination of the witness by the adverse party. This is the testing stage: its scope is wide (s. 143(2) — not confined to what the witness said in chief), leading questions are allowed (s. 146(4)), and the witness’s credit may be attacked (s. 149). It is the “greatest legal engine”.
Re-examination — the examination of the witness, after cross-examination, by the party who called him. Its purpose is repair: to explain matters that came out in cross-examination.

B. The order and its rules (s. 143)

Witnesses are first examined-in-chief, then (if the adverse party desires) cross-examined, then (if the calling party desires) re-examined — s. 143(1).
Examination-in-chief and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts, but cross-examination need not be confined to the facts spoken to in chief — s. 143(2). This is the width of cross-examination stated in the section itself.
Re-examination is confined to explaining matters raised in cross-examination — s. 143(3). New matter may be introduced in re-examination only with the court’s permission, and if it is, the adverse party may cross-examine again on that new matter. This is the single most-tested rule of the topic.

C. Two supporting sections

Order of production and examination of witnesses (s. 140 [IEA s. 135]). The order in which witnesses are produced and examined is regulated by the law and practice relating to civil and criminal procedure (the CPC and the BNSS), and, in their absence, by the court’s discretion.
Judge to decide as to admissibility (s. 141 [IEA s. 136]). When either party proposes to give evidence of a fact, the judge may ask how the alleged fact, if proved, would be relevant — and admits it only if satisfied it is relevant. The gatekeeper of relevance is the judge, not the parties.

A quick orientation on the stages:

Who — the calling party runs the chief and re-examination; the adverse party runs the cross-examination; the judge controls admissibility (s. 141).
What — three successive examinations of the same witness, each with its own scope and its own rule on leading questions.
When — chief first, cross next, re-examination last; re-examination only after cross-examination has happened.
Why — to let each side draw out and then test the evidence, so the court hears both the story and its stress-testing.
How — no leading in chief/re-examination (s. 146); leading allowed in cross; re-examination limited to matters arising in cross unless the court permits new matter.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — a new fact in re-examination

Facts. In chief, a witness says he saw A stab B. In cross-examination, the defence gets him to admit it was dark. In re-examination, the prosecutor wants to bring out — for the first time — that a streetlight was on. May he?

Rule. Re-examination is confined to explaining matters arising in cross-examination (s. 143(3)); genuinely new matter needs the court’s permission, and then the adverse party may cross-examine on it.

Apply. The streetlight explains the “it was dark” point raised in cross-examination, so it fairly arises out of the cross-examination and is proper in re-examination. If instead the prosecutor tried to introduce an unrelated new fact (say, a prior threat by A), that is new matter needing the court’s leave, whereupon the defence may cross-examine on it.

Conclusion. The streetlight is admissible in re-examination as it explains the darkness; unrelated new matter would require the court’s permission and reopen cross-examination.

Decoy. Thinking re-examination is a free “second innings” to add anything is the trap — it is a repair stage, tied to what cross-examination raised.

Section 142, BSA 2023: “(1) The examination of a witness by the party who calls him shall be called his examination-in-chief. (2) The examination of a witness by the adverse party shall be called his cross-examination. (3) The examination of a witness, subsequent to the cross-examination by the party who called him, shall be called his re-examination.”

In Simple Terms: Your own side questions the witness first (examination-in-chief); the other side then tests him (cross-examination); and finally your side gets one chance to patch up the damage (re-examination). Each stage has a name, an owner, and its own rules.

flowchart TD
    ROOT["A witness enters the box (ss. 142-143)"]:::root
    ROOT --> A["Stage one — Examination-in-chief<br/>by the calling party<br/>NO leading questions (s. 146)"]:::leaf
    A --> B["Stage two — Cross-examination<br/>by the adverse party<br/>WIDE scope; leading allowed; credit attacked"]:::leaf
    B --> C["Stage three — Re-examination<br/>by the calling party<br/>only matters arising in cross-examination"]:::leaf
    C --> D{"New matter in re-examination?"}
    D -->|"Yes"| E["Needs court's permission;<br/>adverse party may cross-examine again"]:::diamond
    D -->|"No"| F["Ends here"]:::leaf
    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#000,stroke-width:1px,color:#000;
    classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    classDef diamond fill:#FDECEA,stroke:#B22222,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

Case Laws

Ghulam Rasool Khan vs Wali Khan (1978) — re-examination is confined to explaining matters that arose in cross-examination; a party cannot use it to fill gaps left in the examination-in-chief without the court’s leave.
Laxmibai (Dead) Thr. Lrs. vs Bhagwantbuva (2013) — where a party fails to cross-examine a witness on a material point, the testimony on that point goes unchallenged and the court may accept it; cross-examination is the appointed method of contesting evidence.
A.E.G. Carapiet vs A.Y. Derderian (1961) — if a witness’s evidence on a point is to be disbelieved, he must be given the chance in cross-examination to explain it; failing to put your case in cross-examination is unfair to the witness.

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All BSA (Law of Evidence) topics