Procedure to be followed by court if objection is raised for asking particular question in cross examination

The examination and cross examination must relate to relevant facts, but the cross examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testifies on his examination in chief. The contention that the cross examination has to be restricted only to the statements made in the examination-in chief or in the pleadings cannot be accepted. It is always open in the cross examination to put questions in order that they can nullify or establish the veracity or otherwise of the allegations made in the proceedings.

When the relevancy and the admissibility of a particular question is seriously raised, it is the endeavour of the Court to elicit the answer after recording the objectives. The final decision on such objectives can be decided at the end of the trial. This view has been taken by this Court in the Judgment reported in 2015 SCC Bom 2571 in the case of Neema Hingarh vs. Ashish Hingarh, wherein it has been observed at Para 8 thus:

“8. In the case of Irfan Badshah (supra), the

learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court considered

Section 148 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as also

the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Special

Cell, New Delhi v. Navjot Sandhi alias Afshan Guru,

(2003) 6 SCC 641, wherein it was observed thus,

“… the endeavour of the Court wherever

there is a serious dispute with regard to the

relevancy and admissibility of a question

should be to elicit the answer of the witness

after noting the objections. The final

decision to reject particular evidence as

irrelevant or inadmissible can be if required

taken at the end of the trial. This procedure

benefits even the appellate court as in a

case where the question is disallowed or

excluded from evidence and the appellate

court feels that the same was essential, it is

at this stage not required to remand back

the matter for re-examination of the witness.

Cross-examination is the main tool of an
accused to test the veracity of the evidence

of the witness and discredit his

trustworthiness. Moreover, this does not

mean that the trial court will not exercise its

discretion in disallowing irrelevant

questions.”

In such circumstances, I find that the procedure followed by the learned Trial court refusing to allow the questions at the time of the cross examination, is not at all justified, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that the questions are inter alia those which a party cannot be forced to answer and are patent erroneous and put to delay the proceedings and for oblique purpose or have no nexus with the dispute between the parties.

Evidence Act which clearly stipulates the questions which are permissible in cross examination of the witnesses. As a general rule, the Court would not be justified in imposing restrictions in the cross examination of a witness. But however the Court may in the course of the trial come to the conclusion that some of the cross examination was unnecessary and, in such a case, the Court has powers to control the cross examination of a witness by the Counsel but such power has to be exercised in a reasonable way. As such, the Trial Court should see that the cross examination is not conducted in a rumbling way or that the questions are impermissible under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act.

Ref:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

WRIT PETITION NO. 411 OF 2015

Mr. Ajit Sukhijia,

son of late Colonel (Dr.) Chamanlal Sukhija,

vs

1.    Mr. Edgar Francisco Valles,

2.      Miss Filomena Fernandes,

3.      Mrs. Guida Da Silva,

4.      Dr. Maria Lilia de Sequeira Sukhija,

5.      Mrs. Rajni Porob,

6.      Mr. Chandrakant Pissurlenkar,

Coram :- F. M. REIS, J

Date : 9 th July, 2015.