 Good evening one and all and amongst us we have John S. Ralf who is already taking sessions on different issues of the under the criminal jurisprudence. Today we take a session on witness in trial and to understand as to how the legal journey is and what is the effect on the criminal jurisprudence. I will ask Advocate John to give the insights or you thank you. Thank you sir, thank you for inviting me again into this platform. So the subject for the day is witness who is a witness in a criminal run. Basically I'm a trial lawyer so I'll be concentrating on the basic functions of a witness and the privileges and the other aspects of evidence except maybe the rules of cross examination. As you know that is a very long elaborate subject and we may not be able to cover it in a short span of maybe one month. So I'll be let us see who is a witness, what is the compilability of a witness, what is the privileges of a witness, what are the privilege communications etc. First of all as you all know the evidence act speaks about two methods of introducing evidence that is through oral evidence and document evidence. So these are the methods of introducing evidence which is mentioned in section 3. So evidence means that in section 3 says all statements which the court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses. So basically the oral evidence, whether it is oral evidence or document evidence both comes to the court as mode of proof through the witnesses so that is the importance of witness. Even if a prosecution or a defense is introducing a document that document is also coming through a witness so that is the importance of witness. So all statements with the court permits so what are the situations in which the court may not permit that also we have to consider or requires means compilability and permits means the competency. So that is the basic section that starts with the concept of witness in the evidence act. The specific sections are as you know 118, 118 onwards, 118, 190 onwards, 119 onwards which is specifically dealt with before that or let us consider what is the basic qualities of a witness that is mentioned in section 118. That is that 118 speaks about the competence, 118 says who may testify. All persons shall be competent to testify unless the court considers that they are prevented from understanding the questions that is the basic quality. The person, the witness should understand the question put to them or from giving a rational answers and the person should be able to give a rational answers. If this dual test is passed then that person is competent to give evidence. So that is the basic qualities of a witness. But at the same time even if these two qualities are satisfied that person may not be permitted to speak on two occasions, one the privileged communications, two if it is hearsay. But in matters where exceptions to hearsay like confessions or dying declarations are concerned that can be introduced through a witness barring the overlooking the rules of hearsay in other situations hearsay cannot be permitted, will not be permitted to be introduced through a witness and privileged communications if the witness is claiming privilege that also cannot be late in evidence. So this is the basic qualities of basic compatibility or basic competency of a witness before trial. And in the criminal trial, I may repeat the criminal trial because basically I am a trial lawyer. I already stated that I am a trial lawyer. A witness, the basic functions of a witness, there are three basic functions of a witness. The first, the witness and the in an incident and the witness observes certain things. Suppose in the case of murder or an assault, witness observes certain things during the incident. During the course of investigation, that witness recollects what he has observed at the time of the investigation. And he is giving a statement before the police, police may or may not record it as a different issue. So during the course of investigation, that person is recollecting the things what he has observed during the course of the incident. And during the court, during the examination of the witness or in the box, he communicates what he has observed and what he has recollected during the investigation. So that is the third situation. In the court, he communicates what he has observed regarding the incident. So these are the basic functions of a witness. One, observation, to recollection during the course of investigation, three, communication before the court. And during that, that is the basic function of a witness during the chief examination. And during the course of cross-examination, the cross-examination test, so many things will come under cross-examination, but he will be tested on so many aspects. And some basic, some fundamental aspects on which a witness is being tested in cross-examination are, I have identified few things that is one of, one is motive to speak. That means that a witness is bribed on that witness has some ill will against the accused or some favoritism towards his own side, etc., etc. So that is one of the areas of attack in the cross-examination. And other area will be means of knowledge. Means of knowledge includes tutoring. A witness who has not seen the incident being tutored by the prosecution or by the investigating officer or by another witness or by a partisan witness or by a complainant himself or by the defense or by the defense witness, etc., etc. So that is his means of knowledge. And if the means of knowledge can be proved to be through another person, which means if it's hearsay, then the entire evidence will be issued. So the witness should be able to say his means of knowledge as direct means. If it is not direct, if he says, if he had this cross-examination that he got the information from some other person or from some other source, which he has no direct contact except maybe in the case of experts. Expert is giving evidence not on his expertise, not on the facts which he has personally seen or observed at the time or after the investigation. That's a different bar. Barring that what a witness is speaking for the court is the things he has directly observed. That is another mode of attack, the means of his knowledge. And another thing is power of his memory. Memory bar. Supreme Court has in many judgments has stated that cross-examination cannot be a memory test. That's true. But at the same time, a witness will be asked repeatedly on the date, time, place, different times, different places, regarding different incidents and even the different occasions in which he has gone to the police officer, he has signed the muscles, etc., etc. So the witness also has to be so consistent regarding all those memory tests. And the other, one of the other aspect, which is, which will be under challenge, will be the, his interest in the outcome, that he is not a, not a, not a, it is not a case of a related witness, the interested witness. An interested witness may not be confused with a related witness. If a husband or wife or a close relative of the victim or the accused is giving evidence, we usually call it as interested witness. That may not be correct. That witness is a relative witness, a related witness. But the interested witness is a slightly different aspect. An interested witness means a person who is interested in the outcome of the verdict. So that is called the interested witness. A sibling is being prosecuted and another sibling is giving evidence in which, suppose the allegation is that the accused has committed a murder of his father. And one sibling is giving evidence for the prosecution. And that taggle of the defense will be to show that the interest of this witness is to see that this person goes to prison for committing his own father's murder, so that he will not, he might inherit the property of the father. So that is the classic definition of an interested witness. The person should have some interest in the outcome of the litigation. So these are the basic, there are so many things which is under challenge, but these are the basic factors on which cross-examiner attacks the credibility or the variability or the reliability of the witness. And now we come to the incompetence, competence or incompetence. In the old school, there's a old school says that, as you know, section 120 of the evidence act says that the witnesses parties to the proceedings and the spouses are competent witnesses. And before that, maybe during up to 17th or 18th century, the spouses on the parties themselves, they were not treated as competent witnesses because obviously they will be interested witnesses. So that embargo has been taken away by incorporated section 120 of the evidence act which says that the parties to the proceedings and their spouses are competent witnesses. So before that, before maybe before the enactment, spouses were not permitted to depose and even the parties were not permitted to depose in favor of that parties evidence, the parties side. And even though the evidence act does not speak, the accused as a competent witness. If you go, if you're in section 120, 120 does not speak that accused is a competent witness for the defense. But in India in 1955, correctly in 1955, the amendment came in the CRPC which permitted accused to give evidence in his own defense. And in 1973 amendment 315 was incorporated, which elaborately dealt with the powers and privileges of the end the procedure of accused being examined as a witness for the defense. So this is the old school. And the olden days, 80s, they were not permitted to give evidence because in the olden days, there was no solemnly affirmation was not there. So the witness were supposed to take oath in the name of God. So if the witness is an atheist, they were not permitted to speak and infamous persons, persons convicted or prisoners undergoing sentence or previous sentence, such persons were not permitted to give evidence for the cause. So these were the, and one more aspect, those who objected to or refused to take oath. But that is still, that still holds good in law. If a person refuses to take oath, then that person cannot be permitted to give evidence. But if it is, if suppose through an omission, oath was not given to a witness, then that is a curable defect. And that is taken care of by section 7 of the Indian Oath Act, 1969. Oath Act, 1969. So omission to give oath or take oath is different. Refusal to take oath is entirely different. If a person refuses to take oath, that person cannot be examined at all. So these are the fundamental, these are the old school and some of the rules of the old school still remains. And the old school, accused were not at all permitted to give evidence. But now after 1973, we have specific rules which permits the accused to give evidence. But at the same time, accused cannot be compelled by any court. Accus has to come with his own petition, with his own application by waiving that privilege. And he should, he can enter the box only with his own application in writing. So barring that no prosecution, either the prosecution or the judge cannot compel any accused to mount the boxer. But at the same time, using the powers under section 313 or 165, a judge can ask questions to the accused. For some clarifications, he can put questions. But he cannot be compelled as a witness before in the box. And so these are the compelability part and incompetency. Incompetency can be mental incapacity. If a person is mentally incapable at the time of mounting the box, if that person is mentally incapable, that is an illness of the mind that makes that person incompetent to give evidence. And if that person is maybe due to young age or old age or due to some other ailments on the body or the mind, if that person is unable to understand the questions, and if that person is unable to give rational answers to the question, then also that person is treated as incompetent witness. And incompetency can also be to temporary cause like drunkenness or heavy medication, etc., or heavy pain, etc. If that person is unable to give rational answers, then also that person will be treated incompetent to testify. And if that person, and this aspect is a slightly complicated issue, whether that person should know his duty to speak truth. On oath, when that person is taking oath, he affirms that he will speak truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. And that person, after taking out, he becomes a person who is bound by an oath to speak truth within the meaning of section 193. But the question is slightly complicated if what happens if that person is not fully aware of the consequence of non-disclosure of the entire truth or the consequence of speaking life. That is a slightly different subject and the judicial opinion has been on different aspects. In both sides, there are decisions, so that is still under dispute, still under discussion. And one of the most complicated issues comes when the privilege of an accused, when he mounts the box. As per section 132, the moment a witness mounts the box, that person has to speak. What happens when the accused mounts the box under section 315? He gives an application writing, waving his right of silence, and he mounts the box, he takes an oath. In such a situation, if the incrementing goes on, he is put to that witness, the accused has a witness, then whether he has to speak under 132 or whether he can claim privilege of Article 20 clause. So that is a larger question and the majority of opinion says that constitutional privilege should be even more weighted than the statutory availability under section 132. If that be so, if an incrementing, that point blank incrementing goes on, the person can claim the privilege of Article 20 and keep silent, but obviously the court may take an undisciplined sentence on his silence. That's a different matter. So that is a complex situation when the accused is examined as a witness before the court on his own volition. And if that witness, if that accused is turned as an approver, then this aspect cannot be, need not be looked into because his position has been changed from that of the accused to that of an approver who is a witness. So that privilege of Article 20 incrementing, etc., etc., need not be looked into. And any other, as we have already seen, accused cannot be called as a witness, compelled as a witness. And as per the Vienna Convention of 1962, foreign diplomats and foreign sovereigns, they also cannot be compelled to be a witness before any court. So these are the protections against compilability. And now the next aspect comes. When a witness mounts the box, what are the privileges that witnesses can claim? So that we'll discuss later. Subjectives, we will discuss later. And on a peripheral, on an overall view, we can see that privileges are slightly, can be classified on different aspects. Privilege of the party, privilege of the other party, privilege of certain documents, privilege of official communication. So that is the basic distinction between privileges. We'll discuss it later. Section-wise, we'll discuss it later. And another aspect is, we usually call witnesses, we already mentioned that the interest of witnesses, related witnesses, etc., chance witnesses, etc., etc. So the basic, if we categorize them, we can, we'll get three or four categories, main categories. One is third party, not third party witnesses, a police officer or a master witness, etc., they are called totally uninterested third party witnesses. So they are not, not at all bothered about the outcome of the prosecution. They are independent witnesses, or usually we call them as independent witnesses. So they are also called a third party uninterested witnesses. And third party interested witnesses, usually decoy witnesses, trap witnesses, witnesses who are recommending the trapping offices and vigilance cases, etc., those persons are called third party interested witnesses. And as we have already stated, related witnesses, ladies of the witnesses. And the ladies also can be termed as uninterested related witnesses and interested related witnesses. Interested related witnesses means the persons who are interested in the outcome of the, or who are benefited by the outcome of the litigation. That I have already mentioned, suppose in the case of Patricide, a witness gives evidence against his own sibling to see that the sibling goes to prison for the purpose of he inheriting the property of the father. So that person is a related witness and he's a related and interested witness. Other witnesses may be interested, maybe relatives of the same house, the same family, but they cannot be treated as interested witnesses, related interested witnesses. So these are the basic distinction between different classes of witnesses when we term them, when we segregate them during the course of arguments and final, maybe the final arguments. And another aspect is witness protection. Now we have seen so many cases like terrorist activities, witnesses are to be protected. And there is already protection of the 228A of IPC, the name of the witness is protected, name of the witness cannot be victim, especially the victim cannot be disclosed. And during the in-camera proceedings, and basic rule comes under section 327CRPC, which says that the court should be open. There cannot be a secret trial, the court should be open. But in the same section, section provides for in-camera trials, especially in the case of offense against women like Ray or any other assault against women, those trials have to be conducted in-camera. So that is for the purpose of protecting the privacy of the victim. That is the basic consultation of section of the in-camera trials. And in the POXO trials also, we know that victim will be protected, victim cannot be, will not be confronted with the accused during the course of the trial. But victim protection is an entirely different thing from victim anonymity. Victim protection means the identity of the victim will not be disclosed. Even the defense lawyers will not be given the details of the victims, witnesses. And we have seen in 102 trials, we have had to cross examine the witnesses, whose identity was not at all disclosed in cases like NAA cases. Even the statement of the witnesses will not have the name, address, age, etc., of the witnesses. And the witness will appear through videoconferencing and the face will be blurred. So we cannot see the face. And the witness will be sitting in the presence of another judicial officer before another court. And in India, for the time being, we are blurring the face, but we are not distorting the voice. But that is also being done in some other countries. We cannot hear the actual voice of the witness. Voice will be, all the witnesses' voices will be heard similar through an electronic process that will be heard similar. So even from the voice, we cannot identify the witnesses. And defense lawyers will not be permitted to put any questions regarding the family details or any other details that destroy the identity of the witness. Defense lawyer can only put questions regarding the manner of, on the aspects he has mentioned in chief examination and subject to the examination, the rules of examination. But the details of his family or his own person cannot be permitted to ask. So that is the classic case of witness protection. So in such situations, it is very difficult for the lawyer also, because the lawyer may not be able to see, not even seeing the witness, he will not be even know who the person is speaking against his own claim. So that's a very difficult situation for a defense lawyer, of course. But that also has to be done, especially in cases of terrorist activities. So for the time being in India, we are framing rules, but this is being done now through video conferencing for that. Witnesses are also very comfortable. They need not come to the court in person, and they need not come to the court in person and confront with the other accused. In some of the cases, the persons who are deposing against the accused are so close to them. Some cases, more approvers than one will be there. So we will not be knowing which approver is deposing. That is also a very, very hybrid situation. It is good for the prosecution and very difficult for the defense. And it is always good for the witness. So that is the witness protection scheme or witness anonymity scheme. And now we will let us have a overall look of the privileges, what are the privileges in the chapter 9 regarding the witnesses. And we have already seen section 120 speaks about the competency of the spouse in a proceeding, civil or criminal proceeding. And as you know, 121, as per section 121, judges and magistrates, they are privileged. They are not supposed to, and they cannot be compelled to say what happened in the court while they were acting judicially. But suppose an incident happened in their court, suppose a murder took place or an assault took place in the court, then on that they can be questioned. They have to answer questions. They are cited as a witness, but their contact as a judicial officer cannot be asked, except with the permission of their official superior. So it is for the official superior of the judge or magistrate has to give consent for disclosing that statement. So that is the first privilege. And 122, communication during marriage. So this is often discussed issue before many courts communication between spouses. And a spouse cannot be compelled to disclose the communication made by the other spouse. And the privilege is for the accused spouse. If that spouse gives consent, then the privilege is taken away, then the other spouse can speak. But that privilege applies only to the communications made between the parties, but not to the conduct of the accused in the court. So there was a case made in 50 to 54, in which the accused after committing a murder came to the house. He had a bath. He was closer staying with Glenn. He took a bath, came to the wife. They had a dinner together during the dinner. He disclosed what happened. He has committed a murder and he has stolen some jewels from a neighbor. He had disclosed all these things to the wife. The question before the court whether up to which stage, up to which part the witness can claim privilege. And the court said regarding the conduct of the accused, conduct of entering the house through the roof, conduct of cleaning the clothes, bloodstained clothes, etc., those can be stated by the spouse. The spouse can be compelled to speak, but not the communication made to the spouse that he has confessed the guilt to the spouse. That cannot be. That part is privileged, completely privileged. That part cannot be asked. And another interesting question came in which a person had written a letter to the wife from the present and requested the jailer to send it by post to the wife. And that was intercepted. The jailer gave the letter to the police. And the interesting question came whether that can be proved. And the court said that that can be proved because the privilege applies only to the witness in the box. In that case, the witness in the box was the jailer, all the police officers, subsequently the police officer, who got the letter in his hands. The privilege applies only when the wife enters the house as a witness. So that is the, that is the few basic consideration of communication during marriage. And that applies even after a divorce or the death of the body. So that communication that can privilege applies or that privilege continues even after that. And 123, evidence said to affairs of state. If a privilege in the question is with regard to the affairs of a state, a state can, that witness can claim privilege and that privilege can be weighed by the head of department of that particular section. So it is for the, so in that, so there is a slight difference between these privileges. In the first privilege we mentioned regarding the privilege of a judge or a magistrate. In that such a witness, it is for the, his official superior to decide whether that privilege can, has to be maintained or privilege can be weighed. In the second situation, in the privilege of a wife, the spouse, it is for the accused to weigh the privilege. If the accused weighs the privilege, the spouse can speak or the other spouse, it is for the other spouse to weigh the privilege. When it comes to affairs of the state, it is for the head of the department to decide whether that privilege has to be weighed or preserved. Next is official communication. When it comes to official communication, then 124 speaks about the official communication made in confidence. So that is the, that is a peculiar situation in which the particular witness can decide. In other, other situations with privileges with the, in the control of some other witnesses, some other persons, but in the case of 124 privilege, the privilege can be claimed by the witness himself and the witness can decide whether the privilege has to be claimed or retained or whether he can, he can answer that question by waiving the privilege. So that is the only situation which the person himself can decide because that person got that information on confidence. So that person who gave the information to this witness, he, that person has given the information in confidence. So it is for him to decide whether he has to keep that confidence or not, whether he can disclose. And section 125 refers to information as to commission of offenses. That also comes very often in the criminal trial. When a police officer is being questioned, that police officer cannot be asked from where he got the information. So the police officer is bound to, he can preserve the anonymity of the witness from whom he got the information, from whom, when, from when, when or when, from whom he got information, he can claim the privilege. Even a magistrate also can do that. So that is the difference between a 125 privilege and 124 privilege. And when it comes to 126, 127, 128, we all know that that is the privilege applied to our provision, legal provision of the privilege of the barris or pleader vehicle, et cetera, et cetera. So that is the privilege of the client. Privilege is not of the lawyer. This privilege is of the client. If the client gives consent, then privilege goes. If the client permits, then there cannot be any privilege. Then the lawyer is bound to or law can disclose the communication made by the party to the client. And section 129 is the privilege given to the party. So that privilege he can claim when he is questioned regarding the, or when he is compelled to be a witness before the court, regarding the communication he made to the lawyer. Other communication, 126, 127, et cetera, applies to the lawyer when the lawyer is in the box. 129 privilege applies to the person, then the person who is in the box, and the person is being asked regarding the communication of the confidential communication he made to the lawyer. In the other situations, it is the lawyer who is in the box. Under 129, it is the person who is in the box. So that is the difference between the personal communication between the lawyer and the client. Coming under 126, 127, 128, and 129. And 130 speaks about the third party privilege. The person who is not a party to the proceedings cannot be compelled to produce documents, et cetera. Those are the privileges coming under section 130. And 130, in that extends to other persons who can claim privilege under that personal agent. So these are the privileges in the, some basics regarding the privileges of communications, or privileges of a witness when that person is compelled to. When the question is, sir, can a witness refresh his memory by going through his previous writing statements? That is mentioned in section 159. 159 speaks about the situation. Refreshing memory. When a witness is asked during cross-examination aspect, whether he can produce a document. So that is mentioned in section 159. Shall I read that? A witness may, while under examination, refresh his memory by referring to any writing made by himself at the time of the transaction concerning which he is questioned. Or soon afterwards that the court considers it likely that the transaction was, at that time, fresh in his memory. The witness may also refer to any such writing made by any other person and read by the witness within the time foresaid if, when he read it, he knew to be correct. So this, I have seen one chat but I could not read it completely. So this comes always under a challenge during a cross-examination witness. Usually when a police officer is questioned regarding a part of his investigation, he will be refreshing his memory by looking into a portion of his, especially during the questions raised on molesters and section 27 discoveries. Two schools of thoughts are there. If the person, if an investigating officer is being questioned on general aspects of his investigation, then he can go through the case diary and he can refresh his memory under section 159. But suppose if that police officer is a party to the 27th discovery, then he may not be permitted to look into the masters. Because as far as section 27, section 27 discovery is concerned, that person, that officer was the person who had witnessed that incident. So it is for him to say, it is for him to speak. So that is one school of thought and in most of almost all the criminal courts when it comes to 27th discovery or any other aspects in which that particular officer has collected evidence by his own eyes or by his own method of, by his own physical powers by using his own eyes or what he has seen by himself, then on that aspect he will not be permitted to go through the records. But other aspects, collection of evidence like preparation of molesters, preparation of side plans, etc. etc. that person can be permitted to look into the documents he has prepared and concurrently under section 159 and 166 also a testimony to fact statement in documents mentioned in 159. 166 also has to be looked into. 166, a witness may also testify to facts mentioned in any such documents as is mentioned in 159, although he has no specific recollection of the facts themselves if he is sure that the facts were correctly recorded in the document. This applies to a situation in which suppose a witness is asked whether the suppose a police officer is in the box and if the lawyer asks, sir, have you prepared a molester, a particular scene molester regarding a particular scene and he is sure that a molester was prepared but he has completely forgotten the details of the molester. At such a situation, if he is so sure that he has prepared a molester, then under section 160 he can tell the court that I am sure that I have prepared a molester but without seeing the molester I cannot, then he can produce the case there and he can speak. Let me see the chance in the box. Is there any limit to ask questions in one case more than foreign question asked during cross-examination? Sir Srekan, there is no limit of questions in cross-examination. Cross-examination is unlimited but when we cross-examine victims in especially in poxa cases and rape cases, the courts may require you to be short in cross-examination because that very long cross-examination may not be good for the victim. Barring that there is no limit in putting number of questions, there cannot be a limit. One more question I have seen regarding the divorce proceedings. Is call recording between the husband and wife admissible in divorce proceedings? Is call recording between husband and wife admissible in divorce proceedings? Yes, of course. And even section 122 privilege does not apply as to proceedings between the parties. In proceedings between the parties that is admissible, no doubt about it. In divorce proceedings or in the criminal trial in the 498 year proceedings or 304B etc. etc. if it refers to proceedings between the spouses, then there is no privilege. Call recording can be, no doubt about it, that is admissible in divorce proceedings, no doubt call recording. And in one of the cases, if I remember correctly, a statement, a wife of this accused had telephoned another witness and stated about the confessions made by the accused to his own wife. And the other fellow has recorded that. That is permitted because the evidence of that conversation came through the other man, not through the wife. When the wife is mounting the boss, then she can claim privilege, but that evidence was tendered through another witness to whom she had communicated. And that person has recorded it and that was permitted. So that is a very delicate issue. The privilege applies only to the wife or the spouse. And that privilege applies only to the communication between the parties. So in divorce proceedings, there is no doubt. Our high court by Justice Lisa Gill has held that recordings of a private conversation between husband and wife is not permissible. The title is I can share with the persons. In the divorce proceedings. Yeah, under section 13. The cases. And I've seen one question, sir. Wanted that be hearsay. And that question is not clear. I have seen one question, sir. Wanted that be hearsay. The person has written that is Neha versus Vibhorgarh, the judgment. And Mansi Gupta is probably saying with reference that won't be hearsay. And I have not seen that judgment. I'll also try to read that. I will share you on the WhatsApp. Yes, yes. Yeah, Neha versus Vibhorgarh. This is civil region number 1616 of 2020. Decided on 20th of November 2021. Thank you, sir. I'll go through that. This has been carried out by SCC also. Then I'll have. In fact, live law has also carried it. So, the live law carries that this matter the Supreme Court will consider. Okay. The notice was issued by Justice Vanid Salam. Sir, do you know what is the ratio behind it? I'll share the judgment with you. I don't think we have any other question. And one has said that what is re-examination in a common parlance? Re-examination of rootless. There are rules of re-examination. I shall read that. 137 speaks about three examinations. Examination chief cross-examination or re-examination. Re-examination says, examination witness, subsequent to the cross-examination by the party he called him, shall be called re-examination. And order of examination is mentioned in session 138. And direction of re-examination is also mentioned in 138, which says, the re-examination shall be directed to the explanation of matters referred to in cross-examination. And if new matter is by permission of the court introduces in re-examination, and those party may further cross-examine upon that matter. So usually, the re-examination will be permitted only for the explanation of the facts came out in cross-examination. And the rules, those who are familiar with the trial code, knows the difficulty in putting questions of re-examination. And usually, when the party proposes to put a question of re-examination, all the other lawyers, all the defense lawyers will be so vigilant, they will start all the noises before the person putting the question of re-examination. Because usually the person who puts the question of re-examination will be putting a leading question. And through that leading question, most probably the answer will be supplied to the witness. So that is one of the techniques being used by the trial lawyers, especially experienced prosecutors. When a leading question is put, there will be a lot of noises, a lot of objections will be there. Then usually the experienced lawyers, prosecutors will ask the court to put that question. That is another technique. When there is a, when the other side raises the objection, then they'll very fairly ask the court to put the question for the clarification. So under section 165, they will ask the court to put the questions. So when the court is putting the question, that can be taken in evidence, even if it is a leading question. Otherwise, leading questions will not be permitted in re-examination. So it is for the, for the as far as re-examination, the person who puts the question of re-examination, it is a very difficult job for him. And because, especially if the ADS is very unclear, and if that ADS is not tutored before the examination, before the re-examination, it'll be very difficult. So the number of re-examination, the questions of re-examination will be very limited, usually in the criminal trials. And in 2010, Panner v. Tamil Nadu, 2010 Supreme Court is there. In Panner v. Tamil Nadu, say to Tamil Nadu, page number I have forward, 2010, Panner v. Tamil Nadu. In that Supreme Court said that re-examination shall not be done except in very rare situations. In that case, if I remember correctly, it was a case of decoy or robbery and murder. And the jewellery of the victim were not identified in chief examination. Those jewellery were identified in re-examination. The Supreme Court said that practice was not correct, and that evidence given in re-examination regarding the identification of jewellery has to be issued. And that case ended in acquittal, not on this ground. This was one of the grounds on which the judgment ended in acquittal. So that is the difficulty of re-examination. Usually it is permitted only for clarifications. And usually it will not be asked by experienced lawyers because there is every chance of backfiring that. This is a very difficult situation. Can we give additional list of witnesses or summon witnesses after the closure of evidence? Of course. Of course. Usually the practice is that after the entire prosecution witness is over, maybe except the last witness, the investigating officer, any additional witness if there can be. But there is no such hard and fast rule which says that the entire list should be exhausted. But that is the usual practice. But even before that, at any point of time, the prosecution can. It by invoking section 311 and the judge can by invoking section 311 plus 165, powers under section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, judge also can accept any additional evidence before or just immediately after the closure of the first list. So thank you, John, for sharing your insights. And I will share the judgment with you. And stay connected. We will have more sessions with Mr. John. And thank you everyone who has been enjoying with us the legal journey.