KHARAITI LAL AND SONS HUF Vs. HARI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) From a perusal of the impugned Order it is at once evident that the Learned Single Judge had devised the scheme of furnishing a copy of the questions proposed to be asked from the Defendant, with a view to concluding his cross-examination with expedition. However salutary that objective may be, it appears to us to be legally unchartered, and destructive of the very purpose of cross-examination. This purpose has been succinctly stated in Meer Sujad Ali V. Kashee Nath , 6 WR 181, where it has been observed that "a skillful interrogation may produce by art that which usually happens accidentally" In Sarkar on Evidence, Fifteenth Edition 1999 Volume 2, it is opined that "cross-examination is directed to (1) the Credibility of the witness; (2) the facts to which he had deposed in chief, including the cross-examiner's version thereof; and (3) the facts to which the witness has not deposed but to which the cross-examiner thinks he is able to depose. The object of cross-examination is two-fold--to weaken, qualify, or destroy the case of the opponent; and to establish the party's own case by means of his opponent's witnesses. The objects are to impeach the accuracy, credibility, and general value of the evidence given in chief, to sift the facts already stated by the witness, to detect and expose discrepancies, or to elicit suppressed facts which will support the case of the cross-examining party."

(2.) If a questionnaire is to be prepared and forwarded to the witness in advance its essential purpose would be lost, since truth is usually extracted from the witness by dexterous surprise.

(3.) The Respondent has relied on the observations in Regina V. Da Silva..[1990] I.W.L.R. 31. These observations, however, are of little avail since they contemplate a situation where in respect of a particular question the witness may refer to contemporaneous writing made by him in answer thereto. The Court in such instance would have to be satisfied that, in the circumstances, it would be proper to permit the witness some time before an answer is made. This certainly would not apply to each and every question put to the witness in cross-examination.