Section 156 permits questions to a witness intended to be corroborated about circumstances observed at or near the time or place of a relevant fact, where proof of those circumstances would support the witness's testimony. Independent evidence of collateral incidents connected by time or place may corroborate an accomplice's account of a robbery, including incidents occurring while travelling to or from the location.

Section 155 permits impeachment of a witness's credit by the adverse party, or by the calling party with the Court's consent. Permitted methods include reputation evidence from persons acquainted with the witness, proof of bribery or other corrupt inducement, and proof of former inconsistent statements concerning evidence liable to contradiction. Reasons for a credibility witness's belief may be elicited only in cross-examination, and the resulting answers cannot be contradicted, though false answers may support a charge of giving false evidence.

Section 154 permits the person who calls a witness, subject to the Court's discretion, to ask questions that could be put by the adverse party in cross-examination. Permission is discretionary. Reliance on any part of the witness's evidence remains available despite permission to conduct such questioning under sub-section (1).

Section 153 restricts extrinsic evidence used to contradict a witness's answers to questions relevant only for shaking credibility by injuring character. Contrary evidence is generally excluded after such an answer, though a false answer may expose the witness to a charge of giving false evidence. Contradiction remains permissible for denied previous convictions, facts impeaching impartiality, or material facts in issue rather than mere character or credit.

The Court must forbid questions that appear intended to insult or annoy a witness. Questions that may be proper in subject matter must also be excluded where their form is needlessly offensive, preventing abusive or unnecessarily disparaging questioning during examination of witnesses.

Section 151 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 permits the Court to forbid questions or inquiries regarded as indecent or scandalous during examination of witnesses, even where they bear on matters before it. Such questioning remains permissible where it relates to facts in issue or is necessary to determine whether those facts existed.

Questions asked without reasonable grounds during witness examination may lead the Court to report the circumstances to the High Court or other professional authority where the question was asked by a barrister, pleader, vakil or attorney subject to that authority's professional oversight. The power to report is discretionary and depends on the Court's opinion that reasonable grounds were absent.

Section 149 requires reasonable grounds before a question conveying an imputation of the kind contemplated by section 148 may be put to a witness. Random accusations against a witness about whom nothing is known lack reasonable grounds; however, unsatisfactory answers concerning the witness's mode of life and means of living may justify asking whether the witness is a dacoit.

The Court controls whether a witness may be compelled to answer questions unrelated to the proceeding that affect credibility by injuring character. Questions are proper where the imputation, if true, would seriously affect credibility. They are improper where the imputation is remote, has little bearing on credibility, or is disproportionate to the importance of the witness's evidence. A refusal to answer may support an unfavourable inference.

Section 147 applies section 132 where a question put to a witness concerns a matter relevant to the suit or proceeding. Whether the witness must answer that relevant question is determined under section 132, with relevance to the suit or proceeding forming the condition for applying the answer-related requirement in witness examination.

Cross-examination permits questions testing a witness's veracity, establishing identity and social position, or impairing credibility, even where answers may incriminate the witness or expose the witness to a penalty or forfeiture. In specified rape prosecutions involving consent, the victim's general immoral character or prior sexual experience cannot be used in cross-examination or evidence to prove consent or its nature.

Cross-examination on a witness's previous written statements is permitted when relevant to matters in question, without first showing or proving the writing. If the writing is intended to contradict the witness, the witness's attention must first be drawn to the specific portions proposed for contradiction before the writing may be proved for that purpose. Application to police diaries is governed by the separate procedural framework for such diaries.

Evidence as to matters in writing restricts oral testimony concerning contracts, grants, dispositions of property, or document contents where production is required. An adverse party may object until the document is produced or entitlement to secondary evidence is established. Statements by others about document contents may nevertheless be proved orally when independently relevant, including to demonstrate motive.

Leading questions may be asked in cross-examination under the evidentiary rules governing examination of witnesses. This permission applies at the cross-examination stage and permits questions in leading form to be put to a witness during that stage. The rule identifies cross-examination as the point in witness examination at which leading questions are permissible.

Leading questions in examination-in-chief and re-examination cannot be asked if the adverse party objects, unless the Court permits them. The Court must allow such questions for introductory or undisputed matters, and for matters it considers already sufficiently proved. The restriction governs witness examination at those stages, subject to stated exceptions.

Leading questions are questions that suggest the answer which the person putting them wishes or expects to receive from a witness. Their defining feature is the inclusion of an indicated or desired answer in the wording of the question. During examination of witnesses, classification as a leading question depends on whether the question suggests the response sought by the person asking it, instead of leaving the witness to provide an unrestricted answer.

Character witnesses may be cross-examined and re-examined during the examination of witnesses. Their evidence may be tested by the opposing party and clarified or explained through re-examination.

Mere production of a document by a summoned person does not confer witness status. Cross-examination is permissible only after that person is called as a witness, distinguishing document production from testimonial participation in examination of witnesses.

Witness examination proceeds through examination-in-chief, cross-examination, and re-examination. Examination-in-chief and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts, but cross-examination may address matters beyond the witness's examination-in-chief. Re-examination is directed to explaining matters raised in cross-examination. If new matter is introduced with the court's permission during re-examination, the adverse party may further cross-examine on that matter.

Examination-in-chief is conducted by the party calling a witness, while cross-examination is conducted by the adverse party. Re-examination is conducted by the party who called the witness after cross-examination. These classifications distinguish the parties' respective roles in witness examination and identify re-examination as subsequent to cross-examination in the evidentiary process.