HC on Cross examination of Witnesses: Questions can travel beyond the Examination-in-Chief. [Read the Judgement]

21 Jan 2020

Categories: Latest News Case Analysis

The Bombay High Court in one of its recent judgements has reiterated that in certain cases the cross-examination cannot be limited to the contents of the Examination-in-Chief.

The Court added that it may go beyond Examination-in-Chief as the purpose of the cross-examination is to test the veracity or impeach the credit of the witnesses.

The Court's verdict came out in Sanjay v. The State of Maharashtra.

CASE DETAILS

Via the petition filed, the Court had been asked to look up to an order passed by the Trial Court Judge by upholding the objection of the Special Public Prosecutor without considering the relevance of the question by defense Advocate during the cross-examination of the witness.

Apart from the present plea, an application was also been filed by the original informant for intervention.

After observation of the arguements and petition facts. The bench stated:

" Here the learned Sessions Judge could not have put the entire shutter down in respect of putting forth the questions but then he was supposed to consider the relevancy of the question first. While deciding the relevancy of the question it could not have been traveled beyond the limits laid down by the law. In certain cases the cross cannot be limited to the contents of the examination-in-chief. It may go beyond that as the purpose of the cross-examination is to test the veracity or impeach the credit of the witnesses."

The Court was of the opinion that though relevancy and admissibility are used as synonym terms, it has to be judged from different angles. It said:

Relevancy of the question, generally, comes first and then admissibility is required to be decided.

The Court while making its observation, relied on several cases and as well emphasized on Bipin Panchal's case mentioned by the Trial Court.

In the mentioned case, the Apex Court has stated that the Trial Court can make a note of objection when an objection is raised during evidence recording or oral evidence. The Court opined that the said discretion will have to be exercised judicially.

The Court then referred to R.K Chandolia v. CBI & Ors, wherein the Delhi High Court held that the Court has to control and have the power to decide the relevancy and admissibility of any question that may be put to a witness.

The Court mentioned that the said judgement in Chandolia's case had been reiterated in Inder Sain v. CBI where the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the Trial Court is the best judge to decide the relevancy of the questions put up by the defense counsel during cross-examination of a witness.

The Bench so did dismiss the petition and stated:

"There might be certain questions which would be beyond those documents and as an expert, they are required to be elucidated from him. No straight jacket formula can be laid down as to what should be permitted and what should not be permitted as it depends upon the question that would be put and the relevancy and admissibility of the same and/or of the admissibility will have to be decided at that time."

The Court also remarked that the Additional Sessions Judge is bound by the decisions of this case in recording evidence henceforth. The Court also allowed the application for intervention by the informant.

The judgement has been delivered by Justice Vibha Kankanwadi on 13-01-2020.

Read Judgement Here:

Tags : Bombay High court Cross- Examination of Expert Witness Witness HIGH COURT Defence Question of Fact

Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App