 that despite the fact that we had done more than 500 sessions but and amongst our resource persons though Mr we had the former advocate general who was presently the judge in Delhi High Court who had given a session with us but today for the first time a former judge from Madhya Pradesh High Court is estimating his knowledge on the mastering the art of cross-examination the practical tips as well as law this facet of law we all know as a student and thereafter that how important and how relevant this topic is they say that the who's master in this aspect would always learn to cross all the hurdles in the legal journey and those who are specializing in the cross-examination create their own marks we have seen so many lawyers who have excelled in the art of cross examination have created the space within the space of this tough legal journey be that as it may being a Sunday uh we are enamored by the fact that Justice Ved Pratash Sharma a former judge from Madhya Pradesh High Court who is also the former chairman of the MP Law Commission who has agreed to share his knowledge and we had also he's also a resource person in the National Judicial Cabinet Bhopal we can keep on sharing the different facets of Mr. Ved Pratash Sharma all knowledgeable and resourceful he is but despite his busy schedule he has agreed to share his knowledge I would request sir to take over the button and we are willing to hear from you OD sir. Thank you Mr. Vikas Patrant and good evening to all the participants who are connected online in this webinar which is focused on mastering the art of cross examination and practical tips with law. Friends I think it is a wonderful opportunity for me to share with all of you my experience for almost 35 years in the judiciary as well as in the academics and I would be thankful to Mr. Chatrath for just providing me this wonderful opportunity. Now when we say mastering the art of cross examination then the first and foremost question which creeps up into our mind is that ultimately why so much stress on cross examination firstly and secondly how this art which I will call rather an skill can be developed in a manner so that it effectively solves the judicial system. Now when I say this solves the judicial system then I have to take the broader aspect of the system of administration of justice the ultimate objective of a trial which is an expedition in search of truth is to render justice to the parties by finding out essential elements of truth in that particular case with regard to material facts asserted by one party and denied by the other such facts can be proved as per the Indian Evidence Act by oral or by documentary evidence or by now as per section 59 of the Indian Evidence Act all facts accept the contents of the documents are to be proved or may be proved by oral evidence and this evidence must be direct meaning thereby not hearsay now going a little further even a document is required to be proved by the witnesses of the document simply putting a will or a deed of sale or a contract before the court is not going to help the party relying upon that document ultimately again witnesses are required to prove that document as per the mode led down in the evidence act now before proceeding further we should be very clear about certain things the first and foremost is that what are our objectives of this webinar to my mind it is to understand the scheme of the evidence act regarding examination of witnesses cross examination forms an integral part of the process of examination of then what is the scope of examination in chief in cross examination and what are the elements of law which can help a person in mastering the art of cross examination as far as the judges are concerned it is further necessary to find out what are the powers and duties of the court during the course of examination of witness during examination in chief and cross examination and few sundry points to be taken so the ultimate goal of this exercise happens to be to have a deeper perspective and clear understanding of the methodology relating to examination of witness as contained in chapter 10 of the indian evidence act running from section 135 to section 165 with particular emphasis on the art of cross examination so as to ensure fair trial and dispensation of quality justice hence the role of a witness in a trial is most crucial as I pointed out earlier all the facts except a document can be proved by oral evidence and even for the proof of the document the guns and witnesses are required in the birds of bentham a witness who happens to be the eyes and ears of the court occupied central stairs in the system of administration of justice we know the presiding officers of the court counsel for the parties and prosecutors remain busy throughout the day in this exercise which aims at discerning the truth concerning the list without which real justice may not be possible now as provided in section 137 of the evidence act examination of witness consists of examination in chief cross examination and re-examination now the importance of cross examination in this entire process is of utmost value firstly the right of cross examination is part of principles of natural justice meaning thereby that if anything has to be proved by a witness for a party the opposite party must have the opportunity to cross examine the witness in an effective manner it has been said that cross examination happens to the rarest the most useful and the most difficult to be acquired of all the accomplishments of the advocates it has always been deemed to be the surest test of truth and a better security than both we know either a judge or as liars that examination of witness is starts with the administration of both and you see it is generally able to state truth all the truth and nothing beyond the truth but then what is truth and what is untruth is ultimately to be discerned by the tool of cross examination as yet no substitute has been evolved for cross examination as a means of separating truth from the falsehood and reducing exaggerated statements to their true dimension friends cross examination is a powerful and valuable weapon for the purpose of testing the veracity of a witness the correctness of the statement made by him the accuracy and completeness of the version given by him and the motive behind making the statement quality of cross examination as we all know basically depends upon the skill of the wielder of this weapon that is liar it has been said that a qualitative cross examination can help the litigant in much more larger way than a lengthy argument at the conclusion of the trial because ultimately the arguments are to be raised on the basis of the facts elicited during the cross examination has been quite known in the legal circles that testimony not tested on the annual of cross examination has no evidential value and the second thing failure to cross examine a witness on some material part of his evidence may be treated as acceptance of that part of the evidence now this system of cross examination is not new whenever it comes to the justice delivery system then we can say that it is the oldest tool to discern the truth from the false the account given by Plato of separatist cross examination of his accuser Miletus in his book Apology while defending himself against the capital charge of corrupting the youth of the Athens may be quoted as a masterpiece in the art of cross examination it is worth reading we just having opportunity you can find the book you can browse the pages on the internet you will definitely found how that cross examination was conducted by none else than the accused of the case himself and that is really very fascinating in the sense that so many very vital aspects of this that case we are discovered of course the the result was against the sacratas but then that was for certain other reasons not because the cross examination was not qualitative now it has repeatedly been reminded that to master the art of cross examination a lawyer must possess so many qualities the first and foremost he should have the greatest ingenuity wisdom a habit of logical thought is also required and very importantly infinite patience and self-control sometimes the witness may provoke you but then if you are having the degree of patience then definitely you will navigate through and will be successful in finding out something which is valuable then equality to read one's mind intuitively to judge the character of the witness by face reading to appreciate the motives of the witness when he was making a statement during chief these are also very very fine qualities needed for a lawyer who wants to master the art of cross examination then the ability to act with precision is also necessary last but not the least and rather we see most important is the mastery of the facts and the law if the mastery over the facts is not there then cross examination which is said to be a too as devilized weapon may prove to be self-damaging in a murder case a witness deposed about the incident which as per the prosecution story occurred in night around 11 p.m. and it was not within the town rather away from that no the entire statement as regards he was recorded but then the the question with regard to the availability of that minimal light which can be helpful in identifying the the the persons asserting the disease that question could not be asked or somehow was missed by the prosecution this omission could have proved vital to the case of the prosecution but see the learned counsel for the defense during the cross examination was inept enough to ask the witness how he could see the incident in the night particularly when there was no electricity no light witness responded quickly sir it was a moonlit night and the faces were quite clear invisible so this way a self-damaging question was raised and it was lack of ingenuity on the part of the liar now usually when we just see from a very close ankle then we would say that cross examination is there to win the case of the cross examiner but then is it so to me it is not so the the basic and the the most important objective of the cross examination is to discover the truth and to discover the truth it must be discovered that what is the ability of the witness to hear to see to remember and to relate the incident and the facts deposed by him and how and in what manner he was having the opportunity to witness the facts deposed by him then the further object is to test the credibility and veracity of the witness maybe that whatever he is speaking he's of sound mind yes clear vision good sharing and transparent but then the credibility is something whether he's trying to mix up the things whether he's trying to just avoid certain things he's whether he's trying to exaggerate certain things so this has to be ascertained by establishing that whether the witness is having a particular motive whether he has been bribed whether he is having some pecuniary interest whether he is too closely related in the matter then to impeach the accuracy and general value of the statement made in examines and this can be again performed by eliciting and bringing out the discrepancies the exaggerations and material omissions in the statement of the witness now very often a witness is always selective he knows so many things but he is deposing for a particular party and therefore he will depose only those facts which can be helpful to the party to whom he stands or sees them now the art of cross examination lies in the skill to discover the facts within the knowledge of the witness but not deposed by him in examination and that has to be done in a very very careful manner then one more important aspect with regard to cross examination is suggesting the case of the cross examiner to the witness so that he gets the opportunity to explain certain things to deny certain things or to put a version which he has at his command with regard to those facts in a recent decision of 2021 the supreme court has very clearly stated that if the the party has not suggested its case during the cross examination then it may prove fatal to the case that simply underlines the importance of suggestive questions with which you will also deal a later part of this discussion now as far as the scheme of the act is concerned with regard to cross the examination of witnesses there are general provisions like section 135 which provides with regard to production of the witnesses as per the law in the CPC or CRPC we have then section 136 which confers a power on the court to decide the admissibility of the question and in this regard to question the lawyer raising the question about its relevancy to be stated that is meaning how it is relevant under section five to 55 of the evidence then section 141 142 and 143 with regard to leading questions these are the general provisions then provisions which outline the scope of examination in chief section 137 142 154 having the the chance to put certain questions which can be put in the cross examination by his own witness or her own witness and then section 157 which deals with the corroboration by previous statement of witness then the most important part which really focuses on the determination of the truth by way of cross examination is found in section 138 143 145 146 147 155 of the act and section 161 of the court of the CPC we will deal with all these provisions then the powers of the court which are there under section 136 148 150 151 and 165 of the idea and the issue of witness protection now the difference between examination in chief and procs examination is very and it has to be understood very clearly so that there remains not not the slightest doubt with regard to the various facets of examination chief and cross examination while examination in chief firstly is there to prove the facts cross examination is there to test the variousity accuracy reliability and completeness of the testimony then while the examination chief under the law as per section 138 of the evidence act is limited to relevant facts only fact and issue and relevant facts to see the cross examination can go beyond the relevant facts also as we find in section 146 of the Indian evidence act that even the questions which are not relevant may be put to the witness to test his variousity and secondly the cross examination is not to be limited to what has been stated by the witness it can go beyond within the limit of relevancy with the circumstances from section 146 of the Indian evidence act then another very important difference between the two happens to be with regard to leading questions leading question cannot be asked in examination in chief except by way of introductory or admitted facts but then leading question is important tool in the hands of the liar who is cross examining the witness so these are the important differences between examination in chief and cross here we come to the issue of leading question this issue has been extensively done by honorable the apex court in the classical case of work Joseph versus the state of Kerala 1993 supreme court 1892 and the supreme court in that case ordained that leading a witness in examination in chief through questions regarding material part of the prosecution case is not only illegal and against the scheme of law but it is also violative of article 21 of the constitution of India which deals with life and liberty of a person so that way the issue of leading question assumes much important question as a what is leading question section 141 itself very clearly provides that any questions suggesting the answer which the person putting it wishes or expects to receive is called a leading question so if I say where you present on the spot at the time of incident witness can say yes or no nothing else is required now before examination the witness has been told that you will have to say yes yes yes yes so did you see that accused came on the spot armed with a gun yes did you see that he was wearing white dress yes did you see that he changed the victim for a long distance yes so these are the leading questions and if the examination in chief with regard to fact in issue and relevant fact it based on leading questions then it is totally illegal so the duty of the lawyer who is standing for the opposite party maybe it is civil case or a criminal case commences right at the time when the examination in chief begins he should be alert enough careful enough to see that the witness is not being lead by leading question he should also be very careful in ensuring that only relevant evidence is brought on record that too which is admissible sometimes there may be a piece of evidence which is relevant but not admissible like a communication between a person and his attorney or like a communication during the matrimony husband and wife so that being the privileged communication is not admissible though it is relevant maybe relevant so the defense lawyer or the lawyer who is cross examining the witness should be prompt enough to bring to the notice of the court any irregularity in this regard then the law is very clear that leading questions cannot be asked in examination in chief but during cross examination it is the privilege of the defense lawyer or the lawyer cross examining the witness to reach such question then suggested question I just referred to a case of the supreme court decided in 2021 in which it has been said that rule of putting one's version in cross examination by way of suggestion is one of the essential rule and not merely a technical so if you fail to suggest what is your case to a particular particularly material witness then at the time of argument you cannot say that this is our case this is the way the incident happened and of course we could not suggest the witness so it is all for the lawyer standing for the cross examination of the witness to be very particular to be very careful to very prompt and this is not to basically I would again repeat it is not to win or lose a case a lawyer happens to be the officer of the court and his primary duty of course he is serving he is for the client but his primary duty is towards the court in determination and discernment of the truth there tends to be discharges in a very faithful manner now the next question comes with regard to the hostile witness this expression hostile witness we do not find in the evidence but then section 154 of the Indian evidence act provides that the court may in its discretion permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross examination by the adverse party and all those questions which can be put by the adverse party in cross examination are the leading questions the questions which are there to test the veracity questions which are there to impeach the character questions which are there to ascertain any motive or interest from the part of the witness so once a permission in this regard is obtained from the court such questions may be put by the party calling the witness to each or her witness we do find a practice that the learned counsel for the prosecution or for the plaintiff or for the defendant is to declare the witness hostile and seeks permission to cross examine now both these the manner of just requesting the court to declare a witness hostile and to permit cross examination are not exactly in legal terminology the apex court has objected about in subpar scales in 1976 supreme court to 94 the apex court said that permitting a party to put to his own witness questions which might be put in cross examination is not necessarily cross examination cross examination strictly speaking means cross examination by the adverse party as distinct from the party calling the witness under section 137 of the evidence so it can be noted that the apex court is not help apex court has not been in favor of just using the terms like declared hostile declared unfavorable and permitted to cross the permission may be to put questions in the which can be put by the opposite party in the cross examination matter ends there and to determine whether the whether the witness is not favorable whether the permission is stipulated under section 154 of the evidence act has to be granted the court has to see the demure the temple the attitude the bearing the tenor and tenancy of the answers of the witness if that persuades the judge and further it is found that the witness just speaking something which is in cause inconsistent with his previous statement then definitely to elicit the truth and to administer justice it may be necessary to permit the council calling the witness to put questions in the nature of cross examination and the question may be there is a witness a little clever one who supports the party during examination in chief when he enters cross examination he exactly supports the project party so now what is the remedy with the party who has called the witness the apex court in dayabhai chagan bhai thakkar was the state of guzra area 1964 supreme court 1563 has clearly laid down that such a permission as is stipulated in section 154 court of the evidence act can even be granted after cross examination of the so that is something to be kept in mind now then comes the question with regard to the former statement now section 145 of the evidence act says that if witness can be cross examined with regard to his previous statement made in writing or reduced into writing without that statement being shown to the witness that is the basic proposition of law which we find in section 145 of the evidence act but then it further says that if the opposite party seeks to contradict the witness with such a statement then the particular portion of that statement which is to be used for contradiction must be shown to the witness so that he can know exactly what he stated at the earlier occasion and how he can be contradicted at a subsequent stage now in this connection we can also refer to section 155 clause 3 of the evidence act which is that credit of a witness may be impeaced by the adverse party by proof of a former statement in consistent with any part of his evidence which is liable to be contradicted and if it has to be done then it has to be done in case the statement is in writing by taking or by taking request to section 145 or by following the procedure prescribed in section 145 of the evidence act now one very important aspect with regard to the cross exam combination criminal cases is the use of his statement recorded under section 160 is one of the code of criminal procedure which is considered to be the previous statement of a witness reduced into writing and also the first information report lost by the witness both of these come in the category of previous statement of a witness now the statement recorded under section 161 has to be strictly used in accordance with the mandate laid down in section 162 of the code of criminal procedure but it has been explained or to say ordained by the apex code in the case of Raghunath criminal messages state of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1974 Supreme Court 463 that the court in exercise of powers under section 165 of the evidence act can use such a statement in order to secure the ends of justice against the witness who are cited as a prosecution witness but examined as a defense see the law is that if a person cited as prosecution witness is produced before before the court as a defense witness then prosecution cannot use the statement recorded under section 161 to contradict but then that liberty is available to the court and court in order to elicit the truth and to do justice in the case can use that statement to contradict the witness at this instance we should be little clear in our mind that cross examination is a tool in the hand of the liar to assist the court in discernment of the trial it cannot be used to harass the witness it cannot be used to probate the witness it cannot be used to to to attack the witness in a manner so that it is against all the norms of the crime and here three things come into picture post we have referred to section 146 section 146 of the evidence act unforesee a privilege upon the party cross examining and this privilege is in the same way that such a party during cross examination can lawfully rate certain questions which may not be relevant and this is for the purpose of testing the veracity of the witness to discover exactly who he is and what is his position in life and to shake his credit by injuring his character now first and second thing okay no problem but then shake the credit of the witness by injuring the witness by by by injuring his character and that to my questions which are not relevant to the serious matter and therefore subsequent to section section 147 and 148 take care of the situation rather 147 148 149 and 140 150 now section 147 is clear in terms it says that if such a question which has been raised to injure the character of the witness is covered within the relevancy then the witness is bound to answer such a question whether it is incriminating or whether it may lead to imposition of some sort of penalty or for fiction of course section 132 at the same time very clearly provides that answer given by a witness to such a question cannot be used to prosecute him or to impose against him any of the liabilities under the parental law except for causality that answer is found to be that allocation is found to be incorrect so while under section 147 it is incumbent upon the witness to answer the question that has been put to him to injure his character under section 148 some sort of exception is there if such a question which is not relevant otherwise is also quite unreasonable then court will alert the witness that he is not bound to answer the question meaning the way that firstly the witness is not bound to answer such a question which is unreasonably injures his character and secondly the court has to warn the witness that is not bound to answer and know how to determine the reasonableness of the question so there are certain illustrations and very clearly you find in section 149 which says that questions not to be asked without reasonable grounds you know that suppose a lawyer puts a question to a witness that he is a decoy and he was specifically instructed by his client in this regard that he has the first and knowledge about it then the question shall be treated as reasonable but all of a sudden just out of fun the lawyer says that you are a decoy you are a thief then this is definitely unreasonable and the court will not allow such a question being put to the witness and if the lawyer passes then the course to be adopted by the court is laid down in section 150 of the evidence egg a complaint in this regard can be made not only to the superior court but also to the body which is having the professional control over the lawyers meaning that by bar concept so these provisions while while aim at determining the the real character of the witness by putting certain questions which may not be relevant also provide some sort some sort of protection to the witness against unreasonable question and here the role of the court is very clearly provided under them now the second thing in this regard we find in section 151 and 152 of the evidence egg i'm sorry to say that these provisions are rarely resorted to by the courts and that's why their health has been a shoe and cry in the recent past with regard to the non-corporation of the witnesses a person not prepared to become a witness a person if cited as a witness is not ready and willing to come to the court and if you're coming to the court then blankly stating I don't know anything about this so if your eyes and ears become so dumb deep and blank and who is going to suffer justice is going to be suffer and if justice is going to be suffer then it is a matter of unsum for all of us so section 151 and 152 of the evidence egg are very important in this regard section 151 says that court may forward any question or inquiry which it regards as indecent or scandalous the discretion has been given to the court court may say no you will not permit then just pass this brief order that I invite you for this and this reason the question that has been raised appears to be scandalous or indecent therefore it is declined then there is a mandate continued section 152 that questions intended to insult to annoy or the questions which are needlessly offensive in form say not be permitted so here the description is also not there if the court finds that the question is needlessly offensive it is intended to insult to annoy the witness then the court has to perform its duty and to just refuse the permission the question to be called so these are the things which should always be there in the mind of the lawyer who is cross examining the witness because if he just goes the way which is not permitted under the law under the evidence egg then it is not going to leave a good impression either on the witness or on his party or on the court so that is something the care has to be taken because as I am saying repeatedly it is not simply to win the case it is primarily pre predominantly to bring out the truth with regard to the case and that is the duty of the liars as officers of the court so these are certain vital aspects with regard to the cross examination of the witnesses the ultimate power with regard to the questioning of a witness has been conferred upon the court why the exception 165 of the evidence and it says that the court in order to discover or obtain proper proof of the relevant facts in order to obtain or discover the proper proof of the relevant facts can ask any question in any form at any time to any witness about any fact relevant or irrelevant so this this this prerogative to put even irrelevant questions to a witness in order to discover or obtain proper proof of the relevant fact has been given to the court so that there is no failure of justice but then unfortunately as has been my my experience I have served the the district judicial for almost three decades so this is a provision which is seldom put into use so here I would like to request the honorable judges who are connected in this webinar to just look into all these provisions so that the process of examination of witness is ultimately able to attain the objective of fair trial just decision and quality justice that has to be done now in this scenario one thing is also quite important and that is that when a witness comes to the witness box then he is supposed to speak like a computer machine so suppose there are account books three-year-old how a witness can reasonably be supposed to get each and every transaction entered into the book on the basis of memory or in certain things which just happened two three four five years back and if he has a record of those things then definitely the law permits him to refresh his memory and the provisions in this regard we find in section 159 and 160 of the evidence section 159 provides that a witness can refresh his memory by referring to a writing made by him at the time of the transaction or soon after the transaction and he can also refresh his memory by referring to any writing made by any other person and read over to him at the time of transaction or soon afterwards provided the witness knew that regarding as correct and this refreshing of the memory can also be with the copy of such document provided a reasonable explanation is offered before the court with regard to the non-availability of the arsenal but then if such an opportunity is given to the witness then the cross examining lawyer has the right not only to have the document which has been used to refresh the memory but also to cross examine the witness on that particular document so that way the Indian Evidence Act takes complete care of all the situations which may arise during the course of examination and if the if the scheme of the act is followed followed in lettering description then definitely the court will be very very near to dispensation of quality justice here one more aspect many a times we find that a witness is being examined and some other persons who are witness in the same case are present in the court the propriety demands that when a witness of fact is being examined in a court of law then other witnesses with regard to the same fact including the investigation getting officer should not remain present in the court this is simply for the reason that if anything is asked to the witness the subsequent witness just can recite the same thing and therefore this has been a rule propriety demands that when a witness is being examined the other witnesses who are to be examined afterwards should not be allowed to remain present inside the court else they may get a number of clues to deposit in a particular manner and this is a old decision of Madhya Bharat of 1955 year 1955 Madhya Bharat 78 in which this observation has been made so friends these are certain rules with regard to the scheme of the Indian Evidence Act concerning examination of witnesses and how a lawyer can conduct an effective cross examination how he can master the art of cross examination and as I pointed out at the outside a lawyer who is not well convergent with the facts of his case a lawyer who is not able to read between the lines a lawyer who cannot read the psychology of the witness is standing before him a lawyer who does not know what to ask and what not to ask a lawyer who is not having the skill to navigate the process in his own manner in a shift maybe he cannot be a successful lawyer even today as far as the trials are concerned the quality of the process lies in the examination of the and be it examination chief or cross examination it is the ability of the lawyer it is the competence of the lawyer it is the skill of the lawyer which ultimately decides which which way the case is going of course all these skills cannot be acquired overnight but then if one is constantly reminded by himself about all these aspects of the process of examination and qualities and objectives of cross examination then in course of time he is bound to acquire that skill he is bound to inculcate that art of cross examination which will be really helpful not only to his own client but to the entire system of administration of justice so friends thank you very much for listening me so patiently and I would be happy if certain questions are raised some interaction may be there of course in a virtual manner thank you because I think we are having some 13 to 15 minutes at our disposal and I think it will enhance the the stature and quality of this webinar if the participants raise certain certain questions and come out with certain doubts that can be further analyzed here thank you Zikashi please unmute yourself friend was that the team had gone and they had said that they had made me the host but I saw that in the other laptop only I was the I couldn't get myself unmuted because we don't allow the participants to unmute ourselves I am also more like a puppet once you come on the zoom until unless I am not allowed to be unmuted so we have few questions on this chat box yeah please suggest some tactics in framing cross examination questions to the defendant to see the first and foremost it is necessary to go through the pleadings in a civil case or through the prosecution version in a criminal case and first of all a liar should try to find out certain certain to see inconsistencies in the version itself now this inconsistency may be there when a criminal case is there in the statement of the same witness or maybe that the one witness is stating something on a point and the other witness is stating something other than the point so suppose A has stated something and B another witness has something differently so then the question may be there firstly B was present or not on the spot maybe this witness is able to say that B was not there and that is the reason he is putting the version in a little different manner or he's a tutored witness so first of all whatever material we have before us by way of pleading in a civil case and the documents we should prepare basic questions to be raised during the cross-examination and secondly this cross-examination is an art which you have to find out certain questions at the spur of the moment because your question has to be shaped on the way the witness has deposed or the witness is answering a question suppose at the time of examinism in chief the witness was very hesitant with regard to certain questions he delayed something he he stated something little little diverse in a diverse manner then the the the cross-examination can touch all these issues but as i understand and what i have felt throughout my career as a judge while just witnessing the process of examination of the witnesses the lawyer who is cross cross-examining the witness should be very soft should be very polite and should be very selfish i i just remember an instance i read somewhere that a question was raised to a witness by the learned counsel for the opposite party during cross-examination the witness didn't respond to the question the learned question very politely asked the witness sir did you hear my question the witness said yes sir sir the next question again in a very polite manner sir did you understand my question yes i understood the question sir now a little emphatically sir and what is the problem in responding to the question and answering the question so now this way with these two earlier questions you have trapped the witness and you have kept him engaged that he is not planning something so that way the witness has always to be kept attentive and then not that that he's he's allowed the liberty to go away once that is the art of cross-examination and you see this is something if you just go through the various various decisions of the apex court in the high courts then you will find they just say this this question was not asked why it was not asked this question was asked why it was asked so all the omissions has to be brought to the court all the contradictions have to be brought to the court all the material discrepancies has to have have to be brought to the court and if a lawyer is able to to bring all those things then definitely he can say that he has successfully conducted the cross-examination whatever may be the result of the case in the light and it is said that a person was begging from someone so he said that I am blind so the other person said how do I believe that you are blind he says the tree which you are able to see and that girl is sitting under the tree you are able to see I'm not able to see so that that is something and these things happen these things very often happen in the case I was long back maybe 20 years back I was examining across critics in a rape case and the the the the the I was little I was little strict in just permitting the questions to be put to the to the proscritics so that her honor is remains intact and the the incident that was narrated that this this fellow came in the in the house and she has gone outside the house for some purpose and he caught her and just released now I just thought that it was a very simple case there is nothing not very very serious issues are there a lady has been released in the in the dark nearby her house so I was just restricting the questions so the lawyer said sir I may kindly be permitted to put four or five questions I will not go at length okay yes so then he started your age is now 20 years when you lost the FIR your age was 21 years well two years ago your age was also 21 well you know well four years ago your age was also 21 well you know so then he was having in his possession two more FIRs lost by the same lady in both these FIRs lost two years and two years where the same incident of rape was there allegation of rape was there and in all the FIRs he was 21 years so that way this witness by asking couple of questions was able to elicit something very important in his favor particularly he impeached the credit of the witness that this witness is in the habit of just just recording her age in the wrong manner. I thought she got to stay in and got the matter admitted that she would continue to remain 21 sir this is by Gokul Das nowadays effort in the effort provides all the evidence which cannot be put in the examination chief under the evidence how to deal in such a situation all the you see the the CPC was amended that in civil cases exam examination chief can be offered by your for affidavit no this the entire provision has never been skillfully used by by the by the by the lawyers for the reason that the the affidavit which is records the examination chief it's simply the repetition of the plane if it is the affidavit of the plenty if it or it is the it is the repetition of written statement if it happens to be the affidavit of the defendant so firstly there has to be some improvement in that very direction and you see I had it has been my experience that when the when when such a such examination chief is coming on affidavit then the the cross examination is very lending because the council who is just cross examining the witness is very very very concerned about the about the protection of the rights of his client so here he wants to contradict each and everything stated in the affidavit so the the maybe that in simple cases not very complicated the the the recording of the statement in chief examination in chief maybe on affidavit but then it has also been expressed by the apex court that in complicated cases even the court can record the exam process or the the lending cross examination can be cut short this is my main brain how many times can the defendant give an excuse and not at the end but that's a general random question how many times a defendant can plead excuse yeah from coming to the and not at any proceedings see it is ultimately upon the court to to ascertain whether there is a sufficient reason to exempt the witness from presence on a particular day if the court is of the view that the witness is a intentionally avoiding the process of the court then the policy process is always there available with the court and that can be resorted to that's what i'm saying it's following a description you see discretion has always exercised in a judicious and reasonable manner and there is a question from Mr. K Muthu Kumar Swami yeah he says in the case in the case where there is no pleading of denial to the particular fact in the written statement by the defendant can the defendant in the cross examination of the plaintiff ask plaintiff to elicit particular fact from the plaintiff to fill up the gap in the absence of pleadings you see one thing something is not pleaded cannot be proved that is the first rule something that has not been pleaded that cannot be proved so in absence of the pleading there can no evidence can be laid on a pint if that has not been pleaded secondly details of an incident cannot be pleaded with precision so to that extend the discretion lies with the court to permit the questions being raised in examination chief as far as the cross examination is concerned the law is very clear that the cross examination need not be confined to whatever is stated by the witness in examination in chief it can travel beyond that in it can go to the facts which are relevant which has not been stated by this witness and which can be elicited during the cross examination scan witness examined by the prosecution and turned hostile be called as a defense witness you see just two situations are there when a witness appears as a witness of the prosecution and he resides from what he earlier stated in the statement under section 161 of the court of criminal procedure then the prosecution is usually granted permission under section 154 of the evidence act to put questions to that witness which can be put only during the cross examination this is one situation and it usually happens in the court because the hostility rate is more than 50 percent in criminal cases and there is a another scenario now a witness cited as a prosecution witness is brought as a defense witness because he was not examined by the prosecution as a prosecution witness maybe some apprehension while they are in the mind of the prosecution that he will not support our case and he's brought before the court as a defense witness so now the the problem is that the prosecution cannot use his statement recorded under section 161 CRPC to contradict him but with regard to that situation I refer to the case of Raghunandan versus the state of UP that is such a situation the court can use the statement recorded under section 161 despite the bar created under section 162 of the court of criminal procedure to to to bring out the the real facts and that the citation is AIR 1974 Supreme Court 463. Another question was posted somehow the chat was deleted it said that can a witness in the service law be declared hostile when disability proceedings are going on please please pardon or repeat the question sir whether in service law when discipline proceedings are going on can you declare a witness to be hostile in service law yeah you see in service law the strict rules of pleadings and evidence are not applicable the departmental proceedings under the service law are conducted on the basis of the principles of natural justice so there is nothing like declaring a witness hostile even the Supreme Court has said that it should not be used in that very manner in the courts of law they say it is nothing more hostile the Indian evidence nowhere uses the term hostile it's simply a request is made by the lawyer who has brought the witness that sir I may be permitted to put certain questions in the nature of project recognition to the witness looking to his demeanor looking to his conduct looking to the he has answered to certain questions and the court in its discretion under section 154 permits such a such a such a lawyer or such such party to put questions in the nature of cross examination to its own witness so in service law these rules being not strictly applicable I have never heard that there will be a hostile witness in a departmental departmental proceedings and if you see if a witness is there who is not stating something which should which you are supposed to state then the the questions can be asked in the examination in chief itself certain question because that is an inquiry and in that inquiry if sir if a witness is the deviating from the way from which he was supposed to maybe he can rightly deviating maybe that he what he is speaking by the deviation is the correct state of the facts so certain questioning may be there further questioning may be there even by the inquiry officer what is the question from Sobhina sir it says the witness is hostile yeah and is also examined whether same witness can be brought as a defense witness after 313 statement you see yeah things are very clear no witness can be examined in the capacity of two witnesses once a witness comes before the court of law and entire process of examination should be completed with regard to that witness of course there can be further examination and we have seen so many cases where a witness has spoken in favor of a particular party in favor of the prosecution he has been cross examined he has stood by the version he has given in the examination in chief later on a affidavit is filed before the court of that witness that whatever I stated in the early here it was not correct it was the statement was made under duress or some pressure or some temptation and therefore I want to depose again the supreme court has strongly condemned such such situation they say a witness cannot be allowed to puzzle himself it is self-pulsating you say today something on oath and tomorrow you want to say something else on oath and even the supreme court has directed that some action should be taken against such a witness who wants to just turn down the tables with regard to the administration just that was the last question we'll part for the day and thank you for sharing all your knowledge and as they say so we will continue to have knowledge sharing from you and thank you everyone who has been participating and thank you to all those participants who have watched us live on the youtube and facebook those are not liked shared or subscribed to the session to the youtube channel of beyond loss you'll see they can do it and today's session has been received very well on the youtube thank you sir thank you everyone i would i would also like to express my thanks to all the all the the participants who are there in this webinar and it has been a wonderful experience you see each such exercises gives you a chance to further sharpen your knowledge and to just erase the whatever creases are there in your in your knowledge base thank you very much and once again thanks to all