GRAM PANCHAYAT Vs. SHAKUNTALA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved the defendant, who has suffered an adverse order in the course of the trial of the suit. The plaintiff had brought a witness and his examination -in -chief was tendered through an affidavit. In the cross -examination by the defendant, he was able to elicit some answers which were in contradictions to the statement made in the chief examination. The plaintiff had sought for an oral request that the witness had admitted to some matters which were against the proof affidavit in lieu of the chief examination and, therefore, he should be treated as hostile and permitted to be cross -examined. That permission has been granted.

(2.) THE procedure adopted by the trial court is not tenable in law. Section 154 of the Evidence Act (for short 'the Act') enacts a rule of procedure which is at once essential rule of justice. Section 154 of the Act reads thus: -

(3.) SECTION 154 of the Act must be read in context what is permissible in the chief examination and what is the liberty which is allowed in the cross -examination. A party that calls a witness will be permitted to elicit what he wants the witness to state. Section 141 of the Act states that any question suggesting an answer which the person putting it wishes or expects to receive, is called a leading question. Section 142 of the Act states that the leading question must not, if objected to by the adverse party, be asked in examination -in -chief or in a re -examination, except with the permission of the Court. Section 146 of the Act allows a witness in the cross -examination to be permitted to be tested on his veracity or his position or ask any question to shake his credit, by injuring his character. The cross -examination, therefore, allows for certain liberties which the chief -examination does not permit. The edifice of trial by evidence is built on the procedure of chief, cross and re -examination, as outlined under the Evidence Act under Chapter X. The expression 'hostile witness' itself is not used under the Evidence Act, but it is understood by all courts by judicial practice that a person who calls a witness will not be entitled to put any question which may be put in the cross -examination by the adverse party. This will be possible only in a situation where the court may in its discretion allow for such a deviation. That discretion again is governed through the case law about how a court in its endeavour to secure justice and truth at trial finds that the witness has conducted himself in such a way that he should be allowed to be cross -examined by the party who has led him in chief. This power shall be exercised sparingly to such situation of hostile conduct exhibited at a trial. This cannot be invoked by a party for the only reason that the witness whom he brought has stated in the crossexamination something which is contrary to what was stated in the chiefexamination. The very idea of cross -examination is to call the bluff any assertion made in the chief examination or establish a 'lie' or 'exaggeration'. In this case, the plaintiff's witness originally in the affidavit of chief examination stated as under: -