Section 141: Leading Questions

Overview

Section 141 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Bill, 2023, deals with ‘leading questions’ during witness testimony. Essentially, it sets rules about how questions can be phrased to avoid influencing a witness’s answer. The core idea is to get truthful, independent accounts, not answers suggested by the questioner.

Key Principles / Ingredients

• Type of Evidence: This section primarily applies to oral evidence (testimony given by witnesses). While it doesn’t directly address documentary or electronic evidence, the principles of fair questioning apply to how witnesses are asked about such evidence.
• Conditions for Admissibility/Relevancy: A leading question isn’t automatically *inadmissible*. It’s generally allowed during cross-examination (when a lawyer questions the opposing party’s witness). However, in examination-in-chief (when a lawyer questions *their own* witness), leading questions are usually restricted. The court has the power to allow them even in examination-in-chief if it believes it’s necessary for clarity or to assist a willing witness. Relevancy isn't directly affected *by* the question being leading, but an irrelevant leading question is still inadmissible.
• Burden of Proof Implications: This section doesn’t directly shift the burden of proof. However, improper use of leading questions (especially in examination-in-chief without court permission) can affect the *weight* the court gives to a witness’s testimony. A judge might view testimony obtained through a suggestive question with skepticism.

How Courts Use this Provision

Judges actively monitor questioning to ensure fairness. If a lawyer asks a leading question during examination-in-chief without permission, the opposing lawyer will likely object. The judge will then decide whether to allow the question, often considering if the witness is hostile, confused, or needs assistance. Courts prioritize getting a clear and unbiased account from witnesses.

Illustrations and Examples

• Example 1 – Simple Situation:

  Inadmissible (Examination-in-Chief): Lawyer: “You saw the red car speeding, didn’t you?” (This suggests the answer – that the car *was* speeding.)

  Admissible (Cross-Examination): Lawyer: “You testified earlier that you had a clear view of the car. Is that correct?” (This tests the witness’s prior statement, not suggesting a new fact.)

• Example 2 – More Complex Situation:

  A witness is hesitant and struggling to recall details about a crucial event. The lawyer asks: “Isn’t it true that you distinctly remember seeing the accused person at the scene?” The opposing counsel objects. The judge *might* allow this question if they believe the witness is genuinely struggling and the question is a gentle prompt to help them recall, but will likely caution the lawyer to rephrase if it’s overly suggestive.

Important Provisos / Explanations

The section doesn’t have specific provisos or explanations attached. However, the underlying principle is that the court has discretion. If a witness is deemed ‘hostile’ (unwilling to cooperate), or is a child or person of limited understanding, the court can allow leading questions even during examination-in-chief to elicit testimony.

Difference from Old Evidence Act (if applicable)

The Bhartiya Sakshya Bill, 2023 largely retains the principles regarding leading questions from the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. There are no significant shifts in this area. The core concepts of admissibility in cross-examination and restriction in examination-in-chief remain consistent.

Key Takeaways

• Leading questions *suggest* the answer.
• Generally allowed in cross-examination.
• Restricted in examination-in-chief unless the court permits.
• The court has discretion to allow leading questions if necessary for clarity or to assist a witness.
• Improper use can affect the weight given to testimony.