Section 136 of Evidence Act "Judge to decide as to admissibility of evidence"
When either party proposes to give evidence of any fact,
the Judge may ask the party proposing to give the evidence
in what manner the alleged fact, if proved, would be
relevant; and the Judge shall admit the evidence if he
thinks that the fact, if proved, would be relevant, and not
If the fact proposed to be proved is one of which evidence is admissible only upon proof of some other fact, such last-mentioned fact must be proved before evidence is given of the fact first mentioned, unless the party undertakes to give proof of such fact, and the Court is satisfied with such undertaking.
If the relevancy of one
alleged fact depends upon another alleged fact being
first proved, the Judge may, in his discretion, either
permit evidence of the first fact to be given before the
second fact is proved, or require evidence to be given
of the second fact before evidence is given of the first
(a) It is proposed to prove a statement about a relevant fact by a person alleged to be dead, which statement is relevant under section 32.
The fact that the person is dead must be proved by the
person proposing to prove the statement, before evidence is
given of the statement.
(b) It is proposed to prove, by a copy, the contents of a document said to be lost.
The fact that the original is lost must be proved by the person proposing to produce the copy, before the copy is produced.
(c) A is accused of receiving stolen property knowing it to have been stolen.
It is to prove that he denied the possession of the property.
The relevancy of the denial depends on the identity of the property. The Court may, in its discretion, either require the property to be identified before the denial of the possession is proved, or permit the denial of the possession to be proved before the property is identified.
(d) It is proposed to prove a fact (A) which is said to have been the cause or effect of a fact in issue. There are several intermediate facts (B, C and D) which must be shown to exist before the fact (A) can be regarded as the cause or effect of the fact in issue. The Court may either permit A to be proved before B, C or D is proved, or may require proof of B, C and D before permitting proof of A.
Section 137 of Evidence Act "Examination in chief"
The examination of a witness by the party who calls him shall be called his examination in-chief.
Cross-examination- The examination of a witness by the adverse party shall be called his cross-examination.
Re-examination- The examination of a witness, subsequent to the cross-examination by the party who called him, shall be called his re-examination.
Section 138 of Evidence Act "Order of examinations"
Witnesses shall be first examined-in-chief, then (if the adverse party so desires) cross –examined, then (if the party calling him so desires) re-examined.
The examination and cross – examination must relate to relevant facts but the cross –examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his examination –in-Chief.
Direction of re-examination - The re-examination shall be directed to the explanation of matters referred to in cross-examination ; and , if new matter is, by permission of the Court, introduced in-re-examination, the adverse party may further cross-examine upon that matter.
What is Production of documents or electronic records which another person, having possession, could refuse to produce What is witness not excused from answering on ground that answer will criminate Section 131 and 132 of Indian Evidence Act 1872