Question
Under Sections 142 and 146 of the Bharatiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam, 2023, during examination-in-chief, the prosecutor asks a witness: "You observed the accused carrying a knife into the building at 8:00 PM, isn't that correct?" The defence counsel immediately objects, arguing this is a leading question. The prosecutor responds that the fact is "introductory" or "undisputed." Which of the following correctly applies Sections 142 and 146 to determine whether the leading question should be permitted?Solution
Explanation: Section 146 of the BSA, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 141-143 IEA) provides the framework for leading questions: Section 146(1) defines a leading question as "any question that suggests the answer which the person putting the question wishes or does not wish to receive." Section 146(2) establishes the general prohibition: "Leading questions must not, if objected to by the adverse party, be asked in an examination-in-chief, or in a re-examination, except with the permission of the Court." Section 146(3) specifies the exceptions: " Leading questions may, if objected to by the adverse party, be asked in an examination-in-chief, or in a re-examination, with the permission of the Court, in the following cases:— (a) matters which are introductory or undisputed or which have already been sufficiently proved; (b) on matters already sufficiently proved by the evidence of another witness or a previous witness." In the question's scenario: The prosecutor's question "You observed the accused carrying a knife into the building at 8:00 PM, isn't that correct?" is textbook leading—it suggests a specific answer. The defence counsel's objection is valid. However, the prosecutor may potentially establish an exception under Section 146(3)(a) if the Court determines that: (i) the fact is merely introductory (preliminary context, not central); (ii) the fact is undisputed (defence agrees the accused entered at 8:00 PM); or (iii) the fact has already been sufficiently proved (another witness testified to this fact). The burden on the prosecutor is to persuade the Court that one exception applies. Mere assertion that a fact is introductory is insufficient—the Court exercises discretion and may deny permission if the fact is genuinely disputed or central to the charge (whether the accused carried a knife). The Supreme Court in Tahsildar Singh v. State of UP (AIR 1959 SC 1012) emphasized that even with exceptions, the Court's discretion is paramount and must be exercised judicially. Thus, option (B) correctly applies Sections 142 and 146's conditional permissibility framework.
Four of the five among the following are similar in such a way to form a group, which one of them doesn’t belongs to the group?
Who sits third to the left of K8?
A, B, C, D, and E are sitting in a line. C is sitting at the west end and E is the neighbor of B and C. Between A and C there are two persons. Who is si...
Eight friends – A, B, C, D, E, F, G & H are sitting around a circle facing the center. G is third to the right of B & second to the left of C. B is se...
Six persons (D, E, F, G, H, and I) are sitting in a straight row facing north. G sits second to the left of I. One person sits between G and D. F sits s...
Which of the following person sits fourth to the right of the one who sits infront of C?Â
Which of the following junk food is Tanya eating?
Four of the following five are alike in a certain way and hence form a group. Who among the following one who does not belong to that group?
What is the sum of room number of V, A, Q, X and Z?
Four of the following five are alike in a certain way based on the given arrangement and hence form a group. Who among them does not belong to that group?