Cross-Examination

Dispute was with regard to cross-examining Medical Officer with regard to Medico Legal Certificates and Radiologist Report regarding injuries caused to accused persons and showing the documents to refresh his memory

Complainant contended that the Medical Officer appeared as prosecution witness and he could not be cross-examined to facts which were not relied upon by prosecution in its case

Validity

Medical officer under Art. 155(1) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 could see Medico Legal Certificates and as per Art. 155(2) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, also the Radiologist report in the same fashion to refresh his memory for responding to the questions put by accused

After refreshing the memory, Medical Officer can testify for relevant facts connected with circumstances including date, time and place of such medico-legal examination

High Court directed summoning Medical Officer again as prosecution witness, whereupon accused would cross-examine him with respect to facts relating to medico-legal examination of four accused persons including other relevant facts

Pursuant to Art. 150 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, if prosecution would seek permission to ask any question from the Medical Officer, Court could allow or withhold permission as the situation arises

After close of prosecution evidence, accused would tender such Medico Legal Certificates and Radiologist report in his defence evidence

Revision was allowed accordingly.

Practice of prolonged cross-examination is deprecated.

Witness is not permitted to foist into his answer, any statement/material which is not in answer to or explanatory of his answer to the questions put to him

Such voluntary evidence is denominated as "irresponsive" testimony and introduction of such evidence is against the rule of re-examination as contemplated under Art.133 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.

Material point of statement of a witness not cross-examined is deemed to have been admitted by the other side.

Cross-examination was a valuable right which was more important than examination-in-chief.

Cross-examination of a witness affirms what he has stated in this examination-in-chief and when in his cross-examination he cannot defend his examination-in-chief, then the Court cannot rely upon his examination-in-chief, but has to see and decide the matter on the basis of his cross-examination.

Documents either filed with the evidence or relied upon in the written statement cannot be taken into consideration unless the witness enters into the witness box and is tested with the rigors of cross-examination and only then the said piece of material or evidence can be relied upon or looked into

Purpose of cross-examination of a witness is to test the veracity of the statement of the witness made out in examination-in-chief

Therefore, equal importance should be attached by the court to the cross-examination of a witness during evaluation of the evidence of such witness.

Held; no special provision exists in the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, for cross-examination of the co-defendant/co-accused's witnesses, relevant provisions of law are Arts. 132 & 133, which refer to examination-in-chief and cross-examination of witness by the adverse parties

Article 132(2) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, postulates that examination of a witness by the adverse party is cross-examination

Article 133(1) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, refers to cross-examination if the adverse party so desires after the witness is first examined in chief

Said two provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, make it clear that a party has a right of cross-examination if it feels adversely affected

As a general rule, evidence is not legally admissible against a party who at the time evidence was given, had no opportunity to cross-examine the witness who recorded such evidence

No evidence should be read against one who was not given opportunity of testing it by cross-examination

Such would be unjust, unfair and unsafe not to allow a co-defendant to cross-examine a witness called by the other co-defendant whose case was adverse to him, thus later have a right to cross-examine those witnesses

If there is no conflict of interest, then such an opportunity needs not to be given

Condition precedent for giving an opportunity to a co-defendant to cross-examine the other co-defendant is that there should exist conflict of interest between them either from the pleadings or during the course of evidence

Once it is demonstrated that their interests are not common or there is a conflict of interest and evidence has been adduced affecting the interest of co-defendant then the Court cannot rely on that evidence without giving the opportunity of cross-examination to the party affected by it

Person against whom the evidence is given should have opportunity to cross-examine the witness, so that ultimately, truth may emerge, on the basis of which the Court can decide the matter.

Where the statement of a witness goes unchallenged, it is presumed to be admitted.

Court would always look at the overall structure of the prosecution case in order to see whether the evidence of the witnesses otherwise coincide with the other circumstances of the case

If the evidence given by witnesses coincide with the other circumstances of the case then any confusion if created through some contradiction or confusion in his cross-examination would be of no help to the accused because a witness at times may either be confused by a vigilant/shrewd lawyer escaping the attention of the Presiding Officer or even the State Counsel and will thus be able to extract something favouring or less favouring the accused without letting the witness know the purpose of the said question.

Weak cross-examination or even admissions by defence counsel would not make any good to the case of the prosecution, when otherwise the same was pregnant with inherent defects and contradictions.

Where statement of complainant was recorded in a case by the Trial Court and his cross-examination was reserved but subsequently he did not make himself available for cross-examination though efforts were made to procure his attendance, High Court observed that his statement without cross-examination could not be termed as legal statement and had lost its evidentiary value, therefore, could not be relied upon being unreliable piece of evidence.

Where accused had not produced his counsel for cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, then it was appropriate for the Trial Court to ask the accused to cross-examine the witnesses himself, and in case of refusal by accused, to cross-examine the witnesses itself, instead of the closing right of cross-examining the witnesses.

Admitted facts need not to be proved and material disposition remaining un-challenged in cross-examination amounts to admission.

Admitted facts need not to be proved and material disposition remaining un-challenged in cross-examination amounts to admission.

Said right might or might not prove beneficial to the accused in a particular case but same had always been beneficial to the courts in deciphering the hidden facts, in discovering the real issues, in uncovering the buried realities and thus reaching at the right and just conclusions.

Cross-examination of a witness was not just a formality but was a valuable right of accused, however, it was a different matter if the accused waived off his right to cross-examine a witness who appeared in support of the prosecution case.

Court could not come to just and fair decision of the case unless the credibility of a witness was tested on the touchstone of cross-examination

Cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses was very valuable right of the accused.

Statement of a witness, which was not subjected to cross-examination, was inadmissible in evidence and was of no legal effect.

Applicant-defendant was not permitted by local commissioner to cross examine co-defendant on the plea that both were not adverse parties

Validity

No evidence should be received against one who had no opportunity of testing it by cross examination, as it would be unjust and unsafe not to allow a defendant to cross-examine a co-defendant, whose evidence was adverse to him or who had given evidence against him

If there was no conflict of interest, such opportunity was not to be given

Condition precedent for giving opportunity to a defendant to cross examine a co-defendant was either from pleadings of parties or in the evidence

Conflict of interest existed between the two defendants

Co-defendant for applicant-defendant was 'adverse party' entitling him to cross-examine co-defendant

High Court directed Local Commissioner to record cross examination of co-defendant by applicant-defendant

Application was allowed, in circumstances.

Cross-examination was interrogation by advocate of one party to a witness called by his adversary with the object either to obtain admissions from such witness favourable to his cause or to discredit him

Right of cross-examination belonged to an adverse party, therefore, a party who did not hold that position should not be allowed to take part in the cross-examination

Co-plaintiff did not ask any relief against applicant nor had levelled any allegation against her

Applicant did not fall within the category of 'adverse party' and as such she had no right to cross-examine her co-plaintiff

If applicant intended to bring on record any fact she could do so through her evidence as being defendant's witness, no matter if her name was not mentioned in the list of witnesses filed by defendant

Application was dismissed accordingly.

Criminal case was to be decided on the basis of totality of impressions gathered from the circumstances of the case and not on the narrow ground of cross-examination or otherwise of a witness on a particular fact stated by him.

Such fact went un-rebutted, and the same could not be brushed aside.

Cross-examination, which is a weapon could be wielded for the purpose of testing the veracity of the statement made by a witness.

Cross-examination is a weapon which a person or an accused on his behalf wield for the purpose of testing of reality of the statement made by a witness.

Material portion of a statement of a witness if not cross-examined, it was presumed that the other party had accepted such part/ portion of statement.

Portion of statement which remains unchallenged in cross-examination is deemed to be admitted.

Fundamental purpose of cross-examination is to sort out the truth by disclosing or clarifying the matter, for such purpose no mathematical procedure is prescribed and it is not necessary that witness should only reply question according to the whims of counsel who is cross-examining, as it is a double-edged weapon and a witness while replying the question can explain the matter for clarifying the question of dispute.

Principle that a fact would be deemed admitted in case of absence of cross-examination vis-a-vis the said fact is a principle applicable to civil cases and not to criminal cases

Mere failure to cross-examine on a particular aspect of facts could not, therefore, be deemed as admitted facts in a criminal case.

Any deviation from such procedure may result in injustice to a party.

Object of granting a right of cross-examination could only be achieved after affording a fair opportunity to an opposite party, likely to be adversely affected, being on the receiving end in the shape of examination-in-chief from statement so recorded by the court, in all the matters

To adjudge the veracity, credibility and trustworthiness/ truthfulness of the witness enabled the court, for relying upon, while deciding the matter before it

Grant of a fair opportunity for cross-examining a witness by the adversary had its genesis and roots in the principle of audi alteram partem, duly codified in the shape of Art.10-A of the Constitution

Unless and until the accused was offered/granted right of cross-examination over a witness who had deposed against him, such a statement would have no evidentiary value and as such would be inadmissible for acting upon it or for drawing any inference therefrom against the adversary party.

Portion of statement which remains unchallenged in cross-examination shall be deemed to have been accepted.

Cross-examination is a specialized job, which can only be done by a counsel.

Case of accused person will be seriously prejudiced if the prosecution witnesses are not cross-examined by the defence counsel, particularly in a murder case.

Cross-examination was the most valuable right of an accused and was the only vehicle through which the truth or falsity of the witnesses could be determined

Trial Court had failed to provide a fair opportunity to the accused to engage another counsel

Serious prejudice was caused to the accused persons by the Trial Court

Case was remanded by the High Court to the Trial Court with direction to provide a fair opportunity to defence counsel for cross-examination of said witnesses and recording of the statements of accused persons under S.342, Cr.P.C. afresh

Appeals were disposed of accordingly.

If a witness was not cross-examined on a material point, which was otherwise not proved from the attending circumstances, it did not mean that such deposition was to be accepted as a gospel truth

Each criminal case was seen and decided according to attending circumstances and on the basis of cumulative appreciation of evidence.

Principle that 'part of statement which remained un-rebutted amounted to admission' was not applicable to criminal cases

In criminal cases, the burden to prove the guilt of the accused rested heavily upon the prosecution, which had to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt.

Principle that failure to cross-examine a witness would result in a fact to be proved is applicable to civil cases and not to criminal cases

Court has to decide criminal cases on the basis of totality of impressions gathered from the circumstances of the case and not on the narrow ground of cross-examination or otherwise of a witness on a particular fact.

If a witness was not cross-examined regarding a material part of his evidence, then the inference would be that the truth of the same was accepted by the other side, particularly when the statement was material to the controversy of the case

If not challenged in cross-examination then such unchallenged statement was required to be given full credit and usually accepted as true unless discarded by reliable and cogent evidence.

Opportunity to cross-examine as contemplated by the law must be real, fair and reasonable as the cross-examination was not the formality but a valuable right conferred by the statute

Cross-examination was the best method for ascertaining the truth from the mouth of the witness.

Opportunity to cross-examine contemplated by the law must be real, fair and reasonable as the cross-examination was not empty formality but a valuable right and best method for ascertaining the truth

Cross-examination was a weapon, which could be used for the purpose of testing the veracity of the statement made by the witness.

Right of cross-examination had from times immemorial been held to be, particularly in criminal cases, a valuable right to accused

Same is a weapon which an accused or an advocate on his behalf could wield for the purpose of testing the veracity of the statement made by a witness.

Principle that a fact would be deemed to be proved if the witness stating such fact had not been cross-examined regarding the same was a principle applicable to civil cases and not to criminal cases

Criminal case was to be decided on the basis of totality of impressions gathered from the circumstances of the case and not on the narrow ground of cross-examination or otherwise of a witness on a particular fact stated by him.

Suggestion put by the defence, should not be taken as an admission or confession on part of the defence and there should not be pick and choose from the suggestions put by defence to a witness during cross-examination

Accused had every right to take many defences and if he did not opt to prove any of his defence, he could not be burdened for taking such plea

Criminal case was to be decided on the basis of totality and not on the narrow ground of cross-examination or otherwise of a witness on a particular fact.

Accused's right to cross-examine, a valuable right to be exercised with the framework provided under Arts. 141 & 151 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.

Court's duty to shun with full force uncharitable treatment of a witness deposing under oath in aid of justice.

Cross-examination by accused himself could not be a substitute of cross-examination by counsel.

Cross-examination was not the empty formality, but a valuable right and best method for ascertaining the truth.

Cross-examination was a weapon which could wield the purpose of testing the veracity of the statement made by the witness.

Cross-examination would not be limited to the facts, which witness stated in examination-in-chief.