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 through character evidence from persons acquainted with the witness, proof of bribery or other corrupt inducement, and prior inconsistent statements on matters capable of contradiction. A credibility witness cannot state reasons during examination-in-chief, though those reasons may be explored in cross-examination. The answers cannot be contradicted, but false answers may lead to a charge of false evidence.

The Court may, in its discretion, allow a party calling a witness to ask questions that could be asked in cross-examination by the adverse party. Permission is not automatic and remains subject to discretionary control. A party so permitted does not lose the entitlement to rely on any part of that witness's evidence, including favourable or otherwise relevant portions.

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.

Indecent and scandalous questions may be forbidden during witness examination, notwithstanding some relevance to matters before the Court. They may be allowed only where they relate to facts in issue or are necessary for determining 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.

Questions conveying imputations against a witness require reasonable grounds for believing the allegation is well-founded. Speculative or random accusations are not proper. Such grounds may arise from professional instructions or from court information supported by satisfactory reasons. Where nothing is known about a witness, an accusation made at random lacks a proper basis; however, unsatisfactory answers about the witness's lifestyle and means of living may justify further questioning.

The Court controls irrelevant character-based questions addressed to witnesses where they may affect credibility. It may decide whether a witness must answer and may warn that an answer is not required. Questions are proper only when the imputation would seriously affect credibility; they are improper when remote, of slight relevance, or disproportionate to the importance of the evidence. A refusal to answer may permit an inference that the answer would be unfavourable.

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 may test a witness's veracity, establish identity and position in life, or impeach credit by affecting character, even if answers may incriminate the witness or expose the witness to a penalty or forfeiture. Where consent is in issue in specified sexual-offence prosecutions or attempts, the victim's general immoral character or previous sexual experience cannot be used to prove consent or the quality of consent.

Cross-examination on relevant prior written statements may proceed without first showing or proving the writing. If the writing is intended to contradict the witness, the witness must first be confronted with the specific passages proposed for contradiction before the writing can be proved.

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.