Difference between examination in chief and cross examination and re-examination. Section 137. 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. Examination-in-chief, Cross-examination, Re-examination The testimony of a witness is recorded in the form of answers to questions put to him. Witnesses are not permitted to deliver a speech to the Court, but are supposed only to answer questions. This way, the testimony of the witnesses, can be confined to the facts relevant to the issue. Such questioning of the witness is called his examination. • Every witness is first examined by the party who has called him and this is known as examination-in-chief. • The witness is then questioned by the opposite party and this is known as cross examination. • If the party who has called a witness seeks to question him again after the cross examination that is known as re-examination. The order of examination is laid down in section 138. According to the first para every witness shall first be examined by the party who has called him, then by the opposite party and then, if the party calling him so desires, be reexamined. The second para of the section enjoins that the examination-in-chief and the cross examinations must be confined to relevant facts. But, the cross-examinations need not be confined to the facts touched in the examination-in-chief. If the examination-in-chief does not go round all the relevant facts, they may be exposed in the course of cross-examination. Thus cross-examination can extend to all the relevant facts, whether touched in the examination-in-chief or not. The purpose of cross-examination is to expose the truth about the testimony of the witness. But this is not the only method of discrediting a witness. The Supreme Court has pointed out that if the oral testimony of certain witnesses is contrary to proved facts, their evidence might well be discarded on that ground. If their testimony is on the face of it unacceptable, courts are not bound to accept it merely because there was no cross examination. The following statement throws some light upon the purpose of cross-examination. Where the facts are in dispute, such cases, generally speaking, are proved by human testimony. The value of that testimony depends on the honesty of the witness, his means of knowledge, his memory, his intelligence and his impartiality. Every question is relevant which goes to indicate the presence or absence of these qualities or any of them. Tile object of cross examination may be described as three-fold. First, to elicit from an adverse witness something in your favor; second, to destroy or weaken the force of what the witness has said against you, and third, to show from the present attitude of the witness or from his past experience that he is unworthy of belief in whole or in part. The lawyer seeks to discover the flaws, if any, in the testimony of the witness and also to unmask perjury by the method of cross-examination. Where a witness refused to appear for cross-examination after having been examined-in-chief, it was held that his evidence lost all credibility. Where an opportunity for cross examination has been given but has not been used at all used only partly, that does not demolish the testimony of the witness. An order allowing cross-examination of a co-defendant by another co-defendant to the extent of clash of interests between them was held to be permissible.’ Pro forma party A pro forma defendant was given no right to examine the witness of the plaintiff either on adversely or friendly basis. He also does not have the right to produce his, own witnesses and adversely examine the defendant witnesses. This will be particularly so where he has not filed his own written statement. The proper limit of re-examination is to confine it to an explanation of the matters dealt with in cross-examination. If the re-examination introduces new mailer, the adverse party will have the right to cross-examine the witness over that new matter. The provisions of section 138 are as follows Section 138. Order of Examination.—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 fact to which the witness testified on his examination-in-chief. Direction of Re-examination.—The re-examination shall be directed to the explanation of the 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. Order in which witnesses to be examined An order of re-examination can be made by the court on an application by a party. It is not restricted to the courts’ own motion. A witness cannot be thrown open to cross-examination unless he is first examined-in-chief. Where the prosecution did not examine its witness and offered him to be cross-examined, the Supreme Court held that this amounted to abandoning one’s own witness. There cannot be any cross-examination without the foundation of examination-in-chief. Such an approach seriously affected the credibility of the prosecution case. Where the witness, who lodged the first information report (FIR) with some delay, was asked no questions in cross-examination to elicit any explanation about the delay, it was held that the evidence of the FIR remained unchallenged and, therefore, could be believed to be true.’ S. 139. Cross-examination of person called to produce a document.—A person summoned to produce a document does not become a witness by the mere fact that he produces it and cannot be cross-examined unless and until he is called as a witness. A person who has been called only to produce a document does not thereby become a witness and, therefore, cannot be cross-examined.He can be cross-examined only when he is called as a witness. Section 139 so provides. Where the wife of a partner was called upon to produce the deed of dissolution of the firm, she was not permitted to be examined as a witness. Such a person does not become a witness because he may either attend the court personally to produce the document or depute any person to do so. S. 140. Witnesses to character.—Witnesses to character may be cross-examined. A witness who appears to give evidence of a party’s character may be examined in- chief and may also be cross-examined, and for that reason he may also be reexamined. The court should not allow scandalous and indecent imputations on the moral character of the witness (a mother in this case) where the fact in issue was whether the accused had kidnapped and murdered her son. The paternity of the child was not in question. The murderer in such a case cannot escape by establishing that the mother of the child was of loose character? The evidence of character is meant to assist the court in estimating the value of evidence brought before the court through the mouth of a witness. HOLT, C.J., observed : “A man is not born a knave; there must be time to make him so; nor is he presently discovered after he becomes one. A man may be reputed an able man this year, and yet be a beggar in the next, it is a misfortune that happens to many men, and his former reputation will signify nothing to him upon this occasion.”
Posted on: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 16:13:11 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015