CONCEPTUAL
FOUNDATIONS OF THE ART OF CROSS EXAMINATION
By
MOHSIN MUMTAZ*
I.
Cross
Examination- what is?
Cross
examination in essence is a mechanism which has developed over centuries to
scrutinize oral testimony in order to sift the truth from falsity. In the words
of illustrious author John Henry Wigmore cross examination “is beyond any doubt the greatest legal engine ever invented
for the discovery of truth”.[1]
Renowned
author Best[2] describes it as
“the interrogation by an advocate of a witness really hostile to his cause
whether in form coming before the Court as his witness or that of his
opponent.”
Cross-examination
is one of the greatest modern weapons of testing the veracity of a statement
made by a person. It is both, a sword of attack and a shield of defence.[3] It is not just a formality, but is a valuable right of
accused and best method to ascertain forensic truth.[4]
Richardson, J has
observed about cross examination that, “experience has proved that it is, of
all others, the most effective, the most satisfactory, and the most
indispensable test of the evidence narrated on the witness stand. I know of no
disagreement, among the expounders of evidence, upon the importance of cross
examination[5].”
Cross-examination
is fairly regarded as one of the most effective tests by means of which the law
has worked out a method for the discovery of truth and by means of which the
situation of the witness with respect to the parties and to the subject of
litigation, his interests, his motives, his inclination and prejudices, his
character, his means of obtaining correct and certain knowledge of the facts to
which he bears testimony, the manner in which he has used the means, his powers
of discernment, memory and description are fully investigated and ascertained
and submitted to the consideration of the jury, who have an opportunity of
observing his demeanour and of determining the just value of his testimony. It
is not easy for a witness, subjected to this test to impose on a Court or jury
for however artful the fabrication of falsehood may be, it cannot embrace all
the circumstances to which a cross-examination may be extended. [6]
II.
Objects of Cross
Examination:-
In
Halsbury’s laws of
·
The
credibility of the witness,
·
The
facts to which he had deposed in chief, including the cross examiner’s version
thereof, and;
·
The
facts which the witness had not deposed but to which the cross examiner thinks
he is able to depose.”
M. Monir, CJ,[8] while adverting
to the objects of cross examination has highlighted two fold objects of cross
examination i.e.
·
To
bring out desirable facts of the case modifying the examination-in-chief or
establishing the cross examiner’s owns case, and;
·
To
impeach the credit of witness.
John
Calvin Reed opines that the object of cross-examination is to bring out facts
which go to diminish or impeach the trustworthiness or credit of the witness.
Such tact generally remains undisclosed in the examination-in-chief of the
witness and therefore it is the duty of the cross-examiner to bring them out by
proper interrogation. Some of these facts can be obtained only from the witness
himself, particularly those which concern his personal conduct and his sources
of knowledge for the case in hand[9].
Lahore
High Court Lahore, in a recent case[10] held that whole
purpose of trial/inquiry was to find the truth to impart justice.
Cross-examination was strongest tool to achieve the object; it was very
important that accused should have the facility of cross-examining the
complainant and his witnesses in as complete manner as possible. Object of cross-examination with
the assistance of earlier statement made by the complainant or his witness was
to protect accused against untruthful witnesses.
To sum up, the objects of cross examination can be put as under:
i)
To
test the credibility of the witness.
ii)
To
test the truthfulness of the facts which he has stated in chief-examination.
iii)
To
put the defense version in the mouth of the witnesses.
iv)
To
know the facts which the witness did not state.
v)
To
destroy, weaken or to qualify the case of the opponent and to establish the
party’s own case by means of the opponent’s witnesses.
vi)
To
elicit something in favor of the party conducting cross-examination.
vii) To discredit the
witness.
viii) To impeach the
accuracy, credibility and general value of the evidence given in chief to sift
the fact 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.
III.
Scope of cross examination:
From
the cross-examiner’s angle, it is richly wide and varied. It embodies the
following other branches of sciences[11]:
1)
Rules
of factual inquiries, i.e. the science of facts.
2)
Rules
of logic.
3)
Principles
of human psychology.
4)
Principles
of testimonial faith.
5)
Science
of administration of justice.
6)
Art
of winning people including the art of influencing people.
7)
Art
of conversation.
IV.
CROSS
EXAMINATION: GOVERNING PRINCIPLES:
Principles
governing the operation of cross examination may be bifurcated into two heads
viz. statutory and non-statutory. An endeavor has been made to cover the
significant facets of these principles as a detailed narrative would be too
voluminous to be covered herein.
A.
Statutory
Principles:-
Qanoon-e-
Shahdat Order 1984 embodies in it articles 130-161 (Ss. 135-165 Indian Evidence
Act 1872) which ordain provisions envisioning statutory principles concerning
the examination of witnesses.
B.
Non-statutory
principles:-
Non-statutory principles governing cross examination are those which are
independent of any statute and have been developed by the Courts, jurists and
advocates who were known for their mastery in deploying the art of cross
examination. It is a fact universally acceptable that cross-examination, like
other branches of art, essentially revolves around the skill and the mastery of
a cross examiner. The annals of history have not seen many of the cross
examiners who used to conduct their cross examinations in a legendary manner. It
is for this reason that cross examination is often referred[12]
to as the rarest, the most useful and the most difficult to be acquired of the
accomplishments of an advocate. It is the severest test of an advocate’s skill.
It is undoubtedly a great intellectual effort as it involves a battle of mind
with mind.
Francis Wellman,
highlighting the skill of the cross examiner writes[13],”
The issue of a cause rarely depends upon a speech
and is but seldom even affected by it. But there is never a cause contested,
the result of which is not mainly dependent upon the skill with which the
advocate conducts his cross-examination”.
Also it has been held in a case[14] from Indian jurisdiction that cross examination is a powerful and valuable
weapon for the purpose of testing the veracity of a witness, the accuracy and
the completeness of history and that the extent of its effectiveness no doubt
depends upon the dexterity of the wielder of the weapon.
The
questions which are asked during the course of cross examination are to be
asked by following the working rules which have been developed by barristers
having proficiency in the art. These working rules include[15];
·
Come
to the point as soon as possible,
·
Do
not argue with a witness,
·
Do
not ask a question unless there is a good reason for it,
·
Except
in cases where your position is so bad that nothing can injure it, and
something may improve it, do not splash about and do not ask a question without
being fairly certain that the answer will be favorable to you,
·
If
a witness is manifestly lying, leave him entirely alone,
·
Keep
calm.
Francis
Wellman[16] has further
dilated upon the subject and has appreciated David Paul Brown for what is known
as "Golden Rules for the Examination of
Witnesses"
by David Paul Brown. After paying him a tribute, Wellman goes onto reproduce
the most read and applied rules of cross examination developed by David Paul
Brown. This is what he wrote:
“David
Paul Brown, a very able niisi prius lawyer of great experience at the Philadelphia
Bar, many years ago condensed his experiences into eighteen paragraphs which he
entitled, "Golden Rules for the Examination of Witnesses”.
“Although
I am of the opinion that it is impossible to embody in any set of rules the art
of examination of witnesses, yet the “Golden Rules " contain so many
useful and valuable suggestions that it is well to reprint them here for the
benefit of the student”:
“I. Except in indifferent matters, never take your eye from that of the witness; this is a channel of communication from mind to mind, the loss of which nothing can compensate.”
“II. Be not regardless, either, of the voice of the witness; next to the eye this is perhaps the best interpreter of his mind. The very design to screen conscience from crime—the mental reservation of the witness— is often manifested in the tone or accent or emphasis of the voice. For instance, it becomes important to know that the witness was at the corner of Sixth and Chestnut streets at a certain time, the question is asked. Were you at the corner of Sixth and Chestnut streets at six o'clock? A frank witness would answer, perhaps I was near there. But a witness who had been there, desirous to conceal the fact, and to defeat your object, speaking to the letter rather than the spirit of the inquiry, answers, No ; although he may have been within a stone's throw of the place, or at the very place, within ten minutes of the time. The common answer of such a witness would be, I was not at the corner at six o’ clock. Emphasis upon both words plainly implies a mental evasion or equivocation, and gives rise with a skilful examiner to the question. At what hour were you at the corner, or at what place were you at six o'clock and in nine instances out of ten it will appear, that the witness was at the place about the time, or at the time about the place. There is no scope for further illustrations; but be watchful, I say, of the voice, and the principle may be easily applied.”
“III. Be mild with the mild; shrewd with the crafty; confiding with the honest; merciful to the young, the frail, or the fearful; rough to the ruffian, and a thunderbolt to the liar. But in all this, never be unmindful of your own dignity. Bring to bear all the powers of your mind, not that you may shine, but that virtue may triumph, and your cause may prosper.”
“IV. In a criminal, especially in a capital case, so long as your cause stands well, ask but few questions; and be certain never to ask any the answer to which, if against you, may destroy your client, unless you know the witness perfectly well, and know that his answer will be favorable equally well; or unless you be prepared with testimony to destroy him, if he play traitor to the truth and your expectations.”
“V. An equivocal question is almost as much to be avoided and condemned as an equivocal answer; and it always leads to, or excuses, an equivocal answer. Singleness of purpose, clearly expressed, is the best trait in the examination of witnesses, whether they be honest or the reverse. Falsehood is not detected by cunning, but by the light of truth, or if by cunning, it is the cunning of the witness, and not of the counsel.”
“VI. If the witness determined to be witty or refractory with you, you had better settle that account with him at first, or its items will increase with the examination. Let him have an opportunity of satisfying himself either that he has mistaken your power, or his own. But in any result, be careful that you do not lose your temper; anger is always either the precursor or evidence of assured defeat in every intellectual conflict.”
“VII. Like a skilful chess-player, in every move, fix your mind upon the combinations and relations of the game—partial and temporary success may otherwise end in total and remediless defeat.”
“VIII. Never undervalue your adversary, but stand steadily upon your guard; a random blow may be just as fatal as though it was directed by the most consummate skill; the negligence of one often cures, and sometimes renders effective, the blunders of another.”
“IX. Be respectful to the Court and to the jury; kind to your colleague; civil to your antagonist; but never sacrifice the slightest principle of duty to an overweening deference toward either.”
Judge Perry[17] says: “Cross examination, too, is entirely a matter of judgment. Two
golden rules handed down from eighteenth century, and may be from beyond, are
still unlearned lessons to each succeeding generation of advocates”:
i.
“Never ask a question without having a good
reason “to assign for asking it”,
ii.
Never hazard a critical question without having
good ground to believe that the answer will be in your favor”.
Judge Joseph Wesley Donovan[18] says: “There are no better rules of cross-examination than
five”:
(1) “Know what you need and stop when you get it”.
(2) “Risk no case on the hazard of an answer that may destroy it”.
(3) “Hold your temper while you lead the witness, if convenient, to lose his”.
(4) “Ask as if wanting one answer when you desire the opposite, if the witness is against you; and reverse the tactics if he is more tractable”.
(5) “Treat a witness like a runaway colt; and see that he does not get too much the start of his master; and if he does, let go of the reins at the first safe turn in the testimony; but if you see any object to break his running, call the turn quickly”.
Besides these rules, there are numerous other rules
envisaged and followed by lawyers throughout the world. Some of these rules are
being reproduced here in below:-
i.
Cross-examination
of a witness should never be commenced without the best preparation and without
posting one’s self with all the necessary details concerning the witness and
the point on which he would be called upon to depose.
ii.
Immaterial
discrepancies may not be highlighted too much. The cross examination for
immaterial discrepancy is generally useless.
iii.
A
moderate witness should not be cross examined severely.
iv.
An
unwilling or reluctant witness should not be pressed too much. “When you find a
witness unwilling to give the evidence
you seek, and you have drawn him a near
to the point as there is any hope of his being drawn or driven, it is always dangerous to attempt to urge him
further. If you have nearly got an affirmative, and you press him over much,
you may imitate him into giving you a direct negative.[19]”
v.
Unnecessary
information should not be extracted in cross-examination.
vi.
Cross
examination must be stopped when one gets one’s point. Unnecessary cross
examination may be avoided.
vii. Unnecessarily
various questions should not be put in order to please the cross examiner’s
client.
viii. Too much should
not be expected from adversary’s witness.
ix.
A
cross examiner should never create an impression in the mind of a witness that
he is his enemy even if he has to elicit something un-pleasant form him.
x.
Past
history or some unfortunate incident in the life of the witness must be brought
out by some suitable apology or in a pleasant manner. It is better to use
introductory expression of deploring the necessity of asking questions, and
representing it as one of the unpleasant but imperative duty of cross examiner.
xi.
“Do
not rush through your cross-examination. There is a nothing more common with
beginners than going too fast. They are
frequently told by the judge that they forget that he has to take down the answer when the evidence is coming well,
there is no doubt a great temptation to
let be like a rush of water which shoots over the mill-wheel instead of turning it.”[20].
xii. “A question
should not be asked too broadly. The whole point should not be put before the
witness otherwise one may get it denied in the lump”.[21]
xiii. A witness who
refuses to answer a material question should not be pressed too much. A refusal
to answer or an evasion of one’s question will frequently be more serviceable
than words.
xiv. Material question
should not be put right away, rather should always be couched in immaterial
questions.
xv. The cross
examiner should never ask a question the answer to which may be adverse to his
case.
xvi. A witness should
not be reminded that he is on oath.
xvii. A witness should
not be cross examined on unimportant details.
xviii. A cross examiner
should never lose his temper and should not exhibit his ill feelings.
xix. A cross examiner
should not appeal to the sympathy of the judge or jury too often.
xx. A cross examiner
should be always ready with law and evidence.
xxi. A judge should
not be interfered if he starts cross questioning.
xxii. The cross examiner should know the answer before asking the
question.
xxiii. Every question should be a leading question.
xxiv. Each fact has to be put before the witness in a separate
leading question.
xxv. The cross examiner should demonstrate his grasp of the facts
to the witness and jury in leading questions.
xxvi. The cross examiner should limit and control the testimony
and witness and should not let the witness explain.
xxvii. No questions to a witness who has not hurt the cross
examiner’s case.
xxviii. If a cross examiner
can not contradict or impeach the witness or testimony, he should be nice and
give a cursory or apparent cross and sit down.
xxix. A cross examiner should be confident, should know where he
is and where his documents are in the Courtroom.
xxx. A cross examiner should use discovery, deposition, answers,
prior statements, and other witness testimony to cross.
V.
FORMS OF
QUESTIONS/INTERROGATON PUT DURING CROSS EXAMINATION:
A
cross examiner, while conducting cross examination of a witness, put various
questions to such witness which may take various forms. Some of the forms are
elaborated hereunder:-
1.
Leading
Question:-
A
question is said to be leading when it indicates the answer of it. In other
words it may be defined as “any question suggesting the answer which the person
putting it wishes or expects to receive[22]”.
Further
it may be explained that a leading question is one which either (a) suggests
the answer desired, or (b) assumes the existence of disputed facts as to which the
witness is to testify.[23]
A
question is leading where the question assumes any fact which is in
controversy, so that the answer may really or apparently admit that fact. Such
are the forked questions habitually put by some lawyers if unchecked, as ‘what was
the plaintiff doing when the defendant struck him?’ the controversy
being whether the defendant did strike. A dull or a forward witness may answer
the first part of the question and neglect the past.[24]
Leading
questions, as a general rule, are not allowed in examination-in-chief and
re-examination[25]. However, the
prohibition is not absolute. The Court may allow such questions under Order
XVIII, Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 though objected to as leading
question. Discretion of Court largely rests with the trial Court and depends on
the circumstances, as demeanor of the witnesses, the tenor of the preceding
questions etc[26].
To
shorten proceedings, and bring the witness as quickly as possible to the
material points of the case, it is not only permissible, but proper, to lead
him as to matters which are introductory, or not really in dispute. Frequently
one counsel will indicate to opposing counsel that the witness may be led up to
a particular point.[27]
A
question which merely directs the attention of the witness to a particular
topic, without suggesting the answer required, is not objectionable.[28]
The
rule will be relaxed where the inability of a witness to answer questions put
in the regular way, obviously arises from defective memory, on account of illness,
illiteracy, old age or failing memory. The object of putting leading questions
to such a witness is to revive or refresh his memory by drawing his attention
to a particular topic, without suggesting any answer.[29]
The
objection to leading questions is not that they are absolutely illegal, but
only that they are unfair. The Court may, in its discretion, allow leading
questions in proper cases.[30]
The
Court has to determine, and not the counsel, whether a leading question should
be permitted, and the responsibility for the permission rests with the Court.[31]
The
answers to a leading question are not inadmissible though the method by which
they were obtained may rob them of all or most of their significance.[32]
Exceptions
to the rule that leading questions should not be asked in examination-in-chief
or in re-examination:
v
Leading
questions may be asked as to introductory or undisputed matters or as to
matters sufficiently proved,
v
Leading
questions as to the identity of persons or things may be allowed by the Court,
v
Leading
questions may be allowed to be asked of a witness, to contradict another
witness as to expressions used by the latter,
v
Leading
questions may be allowed to assist the memory of the witness,
v
The
rule forbidding leading questions may in certain circumstances be relaxed where
the witness is wanting in understanding,
v
Leading
questions may be put to a witness where the witness appears to be hostile to
the party calling him, or interested for the other party, or unwilling to give
evidence.
Leading
questions, as a matter of course, are allowed during cross-examination[33]. The reason why
leading questions are allowed to be put to an adverse witness in cross
examination is that the purpose of a cross-examination being to test the
accuracy, credibility and general value of the evidence given, and to sift the
facts already stated by the witness, it sometimes becomes necessary for a prty
to put leading questions in order to elicit facts in support of his case, even
though the facts so elicited may be entirely unconnected with facts testified
to in an examination-in-chief.[34]
However,
there are two kinds of leading questions which cannot be asked at all either in
examination-in-chief and re-examination, or in cross-examination:
Firstly, counsel is not entitled to go the length of putting the very words into the mouth of the witness which he is to echo back,
Secondly, a question which assumes facts are proved which have not been proved, or which assumes that particular answers have been given which in fact have not been given, is not permissible either in examination-in-chief and re-examination or in cross-examination.[35]
2.
Misleading
Questions:-
Misleading
questions are those improper questions which are in reality several questions
combined or in which some assumption is covertly made which the questioner
would not dare to ask openly or such questions which are unfair and perplexing.[36]
3.
Direct and
indirect Questions:-
Questions
may be termed direct or indirect only in relation to the particular fact to be
elicited. A question may be called direct which, if answered, will either confirm or disprove the fact interrogated, on
the other hand, it may be styled indirect when its answer will neither confirm
nor prove the fact directly, but will tend to establish it only inferentially,
either by itself or when taken along with other facts.
4.
Fishing
Questions:-
Questions
put point blank or with the object of fishing out anything which the
interrogator may find useful are fishing questions.[37]
5.
Questions testing
credit:-
Where
interrogation is carried only to test the memory or credit of the witness, it
is cross examination testing credit. The phrase to discredit a witness does not
necessarily convey the notion of discrediting by making him appear to be
perjured. What is meant is that the cross examiner must, by that method,
attempt to show that the witness’ evidence is not to be implicitly believed,
that is mistaken in the whole or in parts of it. [38]
6.
Digressive
questions:-
In
order to use this method effectively, it is necessary to find out some
collateral means tending to contradict the facts deposed to by the witness, not
in an open manner by eliciting an inconsistent statement from the mouth of the
witness, but by extracting something that in effect can be associated with the
matter sought for.[39]
7.
Progressive and
cumulative questions:-
When
the circumstances of the case do not permit a point being made out by direct
questions, it becomes necessary to lead the witness on and extract from him bit
by bit that which you require as a whole. Let the witness by his answers lay
one layer over another till the wall is raised to the required height. This is
always the safest course to adopt in dealing with unwilling witnesses, who,
though not liars, are found inclined to avoid or suppress the truth, if
possible. The gradual process leads them to think that by the slight
encroachments thus effectual their main object to avoid the truth will not
suffer, while in fact losing their ground inch by inch they lose the whole
field though unwillingly.[40]
8.
Intimidating
questions:-
Questions
which cause anger or shame in the witness and are put by coercive and confusing
manner are intimidating questions.
9.
Incriminating
questions:-
The
questions, the tendency of which is to expose the witness or the wife or the husband
of the witness, to any criminal charge, penalty or forfeiture, are
incriminating questions.
VI.
Epilogue:-
In
order to epitomize, reference[41] is made to Cox
who made his observations in his book, " The
Advocate, His Training, Practice, Rights, and Duties," written in England
in late 19th century thus: " In
concluding these remarks on cross-examination, the rarest, the most useful, and
the most difficult to be acquired of the accomplishments of the advocate, we
would again urge upon your attention the importance of calm discretion. In
addressing a jury you may sometimes talk without having anything to say, and no
harm will come of it. But in cross-examination every question that does not
advance your cause injures it. If you have not a definite object to attain,
dismiss the witness without a word. There are no harmless questions here; the
most apparently unimportant may bring destruction or victory. If the summit of
the orator's art has been rightly defined to consist in knowing when to sit
down, that of an advocate may be described as knowing when to keep his seat.
Very little experience in our Courts will teach you this lesson, for every day
will show to your observant eye instances of self-destruction brought about by
imprudent cross-examination. Fear not that your discreet reserve may be
mistaken for carelessness or want of self-reliance. The true motive will soon
be seen and approved. Your critics are lawyers, who know well the value of
discretion in an advocate; and how indiscretion in cross-examination cannot be
compensated by any amount of ability in other duties. The attorneys are sure to
discover the prudence that governs your tongue. Even if the wisdom of your
abstinence be not apparent at the moment, it will be recognized in the result.
Your fame may be of slower growth than that of the talker, but it will be
larger and more enduring."
REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED
Books
·
Gopal
·
Aiyar & Aiyer, The Principles and Precedents of the Art of Cross-examination (10th Ed. Wadhwa
·
Francis Wellman, The Art of Cross Examination (The Mecmillian Company, 2nd Edition,
, London, 1919)
·
Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th Ed.
Vol. 17
·
M. Monir CJ, Law
of Evidence, Revised by H.S. Ursekar (Sixth Edition, The University Book
Agency, 2004)
·
John Henry Wigmore, Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence in Trials
at Common Law usually known as Wigmore on Evidence (1904)
·
John Calvin Reed, Conduct of Law Suit(First Revised Edition, Little, Brown and Company,
Boston, 1885)
·
P. Ramanatha Iyer & P. Raghava Iyer, The Principles and Precedents of the Art of
Cross Examination (7th Edition, Law Book Company,
·
Francis Wellman, The Art of Cross Examination (The Mecmillian Company, 2nd Edition,
, London, 1919)
·
Rehmat Ullah , Art of Cross-Examination
·
·
Cox, The
Advocate, his Training, Practice, Rights, and Duties, (
·
His Honour Judge Edward Abbott Parry, The Seven Lamps of Advocacy (Fisher Unwin,1923)
·
Judge Joseph Wesley Donovan, Tact
in Court (Sixth Edition, Sweet and Maxwell, London, 1915)
·
Richard Harris, K.C, Harris' Hints on Advocacy (twelfth edition
·
Robinson, Benjn, Bench and bar: Reminiscences of one of the last of an ancient race,(F.B. Rothman (
·
P. Ramanatha Aiyar & NS Ranganatha Aiyer, Cross-Examination Principles and Precedents
(3rd Edition, Wadhwa and
Company
·
Qanoon-e-Shahdat Order 1984
·
Stephen, Digest
of Law of Evidence (12th Edition)
·
·
Hardwike, Art
of Winning Cases
·
Sir Patrick Hastings, Cases in Court (1950)
·
Francis Wellman, Day in Court, (The Mecmillian Company, New York, 1910)
·
James Ram, A
treatise on facts as subjects of inquiry by a jury, (Baker, Voorhis & Co. Publishers,06 NAASSAU Street, New
York,1890)
·
Phipson, Evidence,
15th Ed.
·
Sir John Woodroffe and Syed Amir Ali, Law of
Evidence, (Eighteenth Edition, Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa
Cases
·
Muhammad Yasin alias Mithou v. State, 2010
P.Cr.L.J. 1253
·
State v. Campbell, 1 Rich. L. 129
·
Stat of U.P. v. Shanker, AIR 1981 SC 897
·
Khadim Hussain v. Sate, 2010 SCMR 1090
·
Juwar Singh v. State of
·
Muhammad Ashiq v. Muhammad Anwar 2005 YLR 933
·
Mir Hassan v. State 199 SCMR 1418
·
Abul Razzaq v. State, 1984 PCrLJ 1039
·
Velu Pillai v. Parmanandan AIR 1954 Trav-Co 152,154
·
Steer v. Little, 44 NH 616 (
·
Howard Trading
·
Rivers v. Hague, (1837) MS cited Best, S.641
·
Acerro v. Petroni, 1 Stark 100 (Lord
Ellenborough)
·
R. v. Abdullah, ILR 7 ALL 385, 397
·
Barindra v. R., ILR 37
·
Moor v. Moor, (1954) 2 All ER 458
·
Ram Chandra v. State of
·
Lalita Prasad v. Inspector General of Police,
1954 A 438
·
Deering v. Winoma Harvester Works, 155
·
Johnson v. Van, Veslor 43
·
Bernard v. State, 88
·
J Sao v. State of
·
State v. Mcmillain, 20
-----------------------
*. The author holds a Masters degree in Law
and is a serving Civil Judge currently functioning at the Research Centre of
the Lahore High Court,
[1]. John Henry Wigmore, Treatise on the
Anglo-American System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law usually known as Wigmore on Evidence (1904) vol.5 s.1367 pp.32
[2]. Gopal S. Chaturvedi, Field’s Commentary on Law of Evidence (12th Ed. 2006) Vol. 5, p.
4818
[3]. Rehmat Ullah,Art of Cross-Examinations
pp. 29-30
[4]. Muhammad Yasin alias Mithou v. State,
2010 P.Cr.L.J. 1253
[5]. State v. Campbell, 1 Rich. L. 129
[6].
[7]. Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th Ed. Vol.
17 para 278, page 194
[8]. M. Monir CJ, Law of Evidence, Revised by H.S. Ursekar (Sixth Edition, The
University Book Agency, 2004) p. 843
[9]. John Calvin Reed, Conduct of Law Suit (First Revised Edition, Little, Brown and Company,
Boston, 1885), quoted in Wigmore,
1368
[10]. Muhammad Ashiq v. Muhammad Anwar 2005 YLR 933
[11]. P. Ramanatha Iyer & P. Raghava Iyer, The Principles and Precedents of the Art of
Cross Examination (7th Edition, Law Book Company,
[12]. Cox,
The Advocate, his Training, Practice, Rights, and Duties, (
[13]. Francis Wellman, The Art of Cross Examination (The Mecmillian Company, London,
1919) p.13
[14]. Velu Pillai v. Parmanandan AIR 1954 Trav-Co 152,154
[15]. P. Ramanatha Aiyar & NS Ranganatha
Aiyer, Cross-Examination Principles and
Precedents (3rd Edition, Wadhwa and Company Nagpur, 2003) p.97
[16]. Francis Wellman, The Art of Cross Examination (The Mecmillian Company, London,
1919) pp. 397-403
[17]. His Honour Judge Edward Abbott Parry,
The Seven Lamps of Advocacy (Fisher
Unwin,1923) p. 87
[18]. Judge Joseph Wesley
Donovan, Tact in Court (Sixth Edition,
Sweet and Maxwell, London, 1915)
[19]. Richard
Harris, K.C,
Harris' Hints on Advocacy (twelfth edition
[20]. Richard
Harris, K.C,
Harris' Hints on Advocacy (twelfth edition
[21]. Ibid p. 57
[22]. Qanoon-e-Shahdat Order 1984, Article 136
[23]. Stephen, Digest of Law of Evidence (12th Edition) Article 140
[24]. Steer v. Little, 44 NH 616 (
[25]. Qanoon-e-Shahdat Order 1984, Article 137
[26]. Howard Trading
[27]. P. Ramanatha Aiyar & NS Ranganatha
Aiyer, Cross-Examination Principles and
Precedents (3rd Edition, Wadhwa and
Company
[28]. Rivers v. Hague, (1837) MS cited Best,
S.641
[29]. Acerro v. Petroni, 1 Stark 100 (Lord
Ellenborough)
[30]. R. v. Abdullah, ILR 7 ALL 385, 397
[31]. Barindra v. R., ILR 37
[32]. Moor v. Moor, (1954) 2 All ER 458
[33]. Qanoon-e-Shahdat Order 1984, Article 138
[34]. Lalita Prasad v. Inspector General of
Police, 1954 A 438
[35].
[36]. P. Ramanatha Iyer & P. Raghava Iyer, The Principles and Precedents of the Art of
Cross Examination (7th Edition, Law Book Company,
[37]. P. Ramanatha Iyer & P. Raghava Iyer, The Principles and Precedents of the Art of
Cross Examination (7th Edition, Law Book Company,
[38]. Ibid
[39]. Rehmatullah, Art of Cross Examination, p 150
[40]. Rehmatullah, Art of Cross Examination, pp152-153
[41]. Cited in Francis Wellman, The Art of Cross Examination (The
Mecmillian Company, 2nd Edition, , London, 1919) p. 403-404