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 governs when a witness is to be compelled to answer a question in examination. Where a question relates to a matter relevant to the suit or proceeding, the provisions applicable under section 132 apply to that question for purposes of compulsion. The statutory scheme links relevance to the application of the section 132 provisions.

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.

Admissibility of evidence depends on whether the proposed fact, if proved, would be relevant. Where admissibility requires proof of a foundational fact, that fact must ordinarily be established first, unless the Court accepts an undertaking for subsequent proof. Where relevance depends on another fact, the Judge may control the order of proof by permitting the dependent evidence first or requiring prior proof of the foundational fact.

Order of production and examination of witnesses is governed by the law and prevailing practice applicable to civil and criminal procedure. Where no such procedural law or practice regulates the sequence, the Court has discretion to determine the order in which witnesses are produced and examined.

Section 134 removes any fixed numerical requirement for witness testimony in proving a fact. No prescribed minimum number of witnesses is mandatory in any case, and proof may be established without a compulsory numerical threshold for witness evidence.

An accomplice is a competent witness against an accused person. A conviction founded solely on uncorroborated accomplice testimony is not illegal merely because independent corroboration is absent. The provision recognises the evidentiary competence of accomplices and does not impose corroboration as a condition of a legally valid conviction.

Section 132 requires a witness to answer relevant questions in civil or criminal proceedings even where an answer may incriminate the witness or expose the witness to a penalty or forfeiture. A compelled answer cannot subject the witness to arrest or prosecution, nor may it be proved against the witness in criminal proceedings, except in a prosecution for giving false evidence through that answer.

Section 131 preserves derivative evidentiary privilege by barring compelled production of documents in a person's possession or electronic records under that person's control when another person could refuse their production if they possessed or controlled them. Compulsion is permitted only where that other person consents to production. The protection follows the entitlement to withhold the material rather than the identity of its current holder or controller.

A witness who is not a party to a suit cannot be compelled to produce title deeds relating to property, documents evidencing property held as pledgee or mortgagee, or documents whose production may tend to incriminate the witness. Compulsion is permitted only where the witness has agreed in writing with the person seeking production, or a person through whom that person claims, to produce the deeds or documents.

Confidential communications with a legal professional adviser cannot ordinarily be compelled before a court. Where a person offers himself or herself as a witness, disclosure may be required only for communications necessary to explain evidence already given. Other confidential communications remain protected.