{"id":1369,"date":"2022-10-04T10:38:41","date_gmt":"2022-10-04T05:08:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/?p=1369"},"modified":"2026-10-16T07:54:17","modified_gmt":"2026-10-16T02:24:17","slug":"section-141-evidence-act-legal-section-of-the-day","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/section-141-evidence-act-legal-section-of-the-day\/","title":{"rendered":"Section 141 Evidence Act – Legal Section of the Day"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Section 141 of Evidence Act :- Leading Questions.\u2014<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Any question suggesting the answer which the person putting it wishes or expects to receive, is called a leading question.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Section 141 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with leading questions. A leading question is one which suggests the answer or puts words in the mouth of a witness. It is a question that prompts or encourages a witness to give a particular answer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Section 141 only defines what a leading question is. The rules on when such questions may be put are in the next two sections. Under Section 142, leading questions must not, if objected to by the adverse party, be asked in examination-in-chief or in re-examination except with the permission of the Court; but the Court shall permit leading questions on matters which are introductory or undisputed, or which have in its opinion been already sufficiently proved. Under Section 143, leading questions may be asked in cross-examination. Where a party’s own witness turns hostile, the Court may under Section 154 permit that party to put questions that might be put in cross-examination, including leading questions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since 1 July 2024 these provisions appear in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 as Sections 146 (definition), 147 (examination-in-chief and re-examination) and 148 (cross-examination).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Leading Questions in Practice: An Example<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

To see how the provisions work together, consider a hypothetical example. During examination-in-chief, the prosecutor asks a witness, “You saw the accused strike the victim with a rod, did you not?” The defence objects. Because the question suggests the answer it wants and the matter is disputed, the Court will not permit it unless it concerns an introductory or undisputed fact (Section 142); the prosecutor must instead ask what the witness saw. When the same witness is cross-examined, defence counsel may freely ask leading questions such as “It was dark and you were standing fifty metres away, weren’t you?” (Section 143). The difference lies in who called the witness, not in the subject of the question.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The purpose of this provision is to ensure that witnesses give their testimony freely and truthfully, without being influenced or prompted by leading questions. It is also intended to prevent any party from manipulating the testimony of a witness to suit their case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Reviewed and updated by Century Law Firm<\/a>, Delhi \u2013 October 2026. Statutory references are to the Acts as in force on that date.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Leading questions after the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

From 1 July 2024, Sections 141, 142 and 143 of the Indian Evidence Act have been consolidated into Section 146 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA). The substance is unchanged: a leading question is one that suggests the answer; it may not be asked in examination-in-chief or re-examination if the opposite party objects, except with the court’s permission; the court must permit it on introductory, undisputed or already-proved matters; and it may always be asked in cross-examination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why the rule exists<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

A witness called by a party is presumed to be favourable to that party. If counsel could feed the answers, the testimony would be counsel’s story in the witness’s mouth. In cross-examination the witness is presumed adverse, so suggestion is the very tool for testing memory and truthfulness. The Supreme Court<\/a> in Varkey Joseph v. State of Kerala<\/em> (1993) deprecated the practice of a public prosecutor putting leading questions on the material facts of the prosecution case and treated evidence so obtained as of little value.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Practical points for trial lawyers<\/h3>\n\n\n\n