Cross-examination techniques in Urdu | meaning in Urdu | Defendant, co-defendants per jirah kar sakta hai
 |
| Cross examinations techniques |
What is the meaning of Cross examin ?
Cross-examination meaning in English
Cross-examination is a legal term referring to the questioning of a witness in a legal proceeding, such as a trial, by the opposing party's attorney. The purpose of cross-examination is to challenge or test the credibility, accuracy, and consistency of the witness's testimony given during the direct examination conducted by their own attorney.
During cross-examination, the opposing attorney aims to elicit information that may cast doubt on the witness's credibility, highlight inconsistencies in their statements, or uncover additional details that may be beneficial to their case. It's a crucial part of the adversarial legal process and is designed to ensure a thorough and fair examination of the evidence presented in court.
Cross-Cross-examination meaning in Urdu
کراس ایگزامینیشن ایک قانونی اصطلاح ہے جو کسی قانونی کارروائی میں گواہ سے پوچھ گچھ کا حوالہ دیتی ہے، جیسے مقدمے کی سماعت، مخالف فریق کے وکیل کے ذریعے۔ جرح کا مقصد گواہ کی گواہی کی ساکھ، درستگی اور مستقل مزاجی کو چیلنج کرنا یا جانچنا ہے جو ان کے اپنے وکیل کے ذریعے براہ راست امتحان کے دوران دی گئی ہے۔ جرح کے دوران، مخالف اٹارنی کا مقصد ایسی معلومات کو نکالنا ہے جو گواہ کی ساکھ پر شک پیدا کر سکتی ہے، ان کے بیانات میں تضادات کو نمایاں کر سکتی ہے، یا اضافی تفصیلات سے پردہ اٹھانا ہے جو ان کے کیس کے لیے فائدہ مند ہو سکتی ہیں۔ یہ مخالف قانونی عمل کا ایک اہم حصہ ہے اور اسے عدالت میں پیش کیے گئے شواہد کی مکمل اور منصفانہ جانچ کو یقینی بنانے کے لیے ڈیزائن کیا گیا ہے۔
What are the techniques used in cross-examination?
Cross-examination involves various techniques aimed at challenging the witness's testimony and uncovering information beneficial to the opposing party. Some common techniques include:
1. **Leading Questions:** The attorney asks questions that suggest a specific answer, often with a yes or no response, to guide the witness in a particular direction.
2. **Impeachment:** Attempting to discredit the witness by showing inconsistencies in their testimony, bringing up prior inconsistent statements, or questioning their character or bias.
3. **Contradiction:** Pointing out inconsistencies or contradictions between the witness's current testimony and previous statements or evidence.
4. **Establishing Bias or Interest:** Investigating and highlighting any potential bias or personal interest the witness may have in the case, which could impact their credibility.
5. **Testing Perception and Memory:** Challenging the witness's ability to perceive, remember, and recall events accurately, especially by questioning the timing and details of their observations.
6. **Limited Scope:** Restricting the witness's ability to provide additional information by asking questions that require brief and specific answers.
7. **Expertise Challenge:** Questioning the witness's qualifications or expertise, particularly in cases involving expert witnesses.
8. **Establishing Facts Favorable to the Cross-Examiner:** Extracting information that supports the cross-examiner's case or weakens the opposing party's position.
Effective cross-examination requires careful preparation, knowledge of the case, and the ability to think on one's feet. It serves as a critical tool for attorneys to test the strength of the evidence presented and challenge the narrative put forth by the opposing party.
Cross-examination techniques in Urdu
جرح میں مختلف تکنیکیں شامل ہوتی ہیں جن کا مقصد گواہ کی گواہی کو چیلنج کرنا اور فریق مخالف کے لیے فائدہ مند معلومات کو بے نقاب کرنا ہے۔ کچھ عام تکنیکوں میں شامل ہیں:
1. **سرکردہ سوالات:** اٹارنی ایسے سوالات پوچھتا ہے جو ایک مخصوص جواب تجویز کرتے ہیں، اکثر ہاں یا نہیں کے جواب کے ساتھ، گواہ کی کسی خاص سمت میں رہنمائی کرتے ہیں۔
2. **مواخذہ:** گواہ کو ان کی گواہی میں تضادات دکھا کر، پہلے سے متضاد بیانات پیش کرکے، یا ان کے کردار یا تعصب پر سوال اٹھا کر اسے بدنام کرنے کی کوشش کرنا۔
3. **تضاد:** گواہ کی موجودہ گواہی اور پچھلے بیانات یا شواہد کے درمیان تضادات یا تضادات کی نشاندہی کرنا۔
4. **تعصب یا دلچسپی قائم کرنا:** کیس میں گواہ کے کسی ممکنہ تعصب یا ذاتی مفاد کی چھان بین کرنا اور اس کو اجاگر کرنا، جو ان کی ساکھ کو متاثر کر سکتا ہے۔
5. **عوام اور یادداشت کی جانچ:** واقعات کو درست طریقے سے سمجھنے، یاد رکھنے اور یاد کرنے کی گواہ کی صلاحیت کو چیلنج کرنا، خاص طور پر ان کے مشاہدات کے وقت اور تفصیلات پر سوال اٹھا کر۔
6. **محدود دائرہ کار:** ایسے سوالات پوچھ کر جن کے مختصر اور مخصوص جوابات کی ضرورت ہوتی ہے گواہ کی اضافی معلومات فراہم کرنے کی صلاحیت کو محدود کرنا۔
7. **ماہرانہ چیلنج:** گواہ کی قابلیت یا مہارت پر سوال اٹھانا، خاص طور پر ایسے معاملات میں جن میں ماہر گواہ شامل ہوں۔
8. **حقائق کا تعین کرنا جو کراس ایگزامینر کے لیے سازگار ہو:** ایسی معلومات نکالنا جو کراس ایگزامینر کے کیس کی حمایت کرتی ہو یا فریق مخالف کی پوزیشن کو کمزور کرتی ہو۔
مؤثر جرح کے لیے محتاط تیاری، کیس کا علم، اور اپنے پیروں پر سوچنے کی صلاحیت کی ضرورت ہوتی ہے۔ یہ پیش کردہ شواہد کی طاقت کو جانچنے اور مخالف فریق کی طرف سے پیش کردہ بیانیہ کو چیلنج کرنے کے لیے وکلاء کے لیے ایک اہم ٹول کے طور پر کام کرتا ہے
Case Law on Cross-Cross-examination
Stereo. H C J D A-38.
JUDGMENT SHEET
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE.
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
W.P. No.25275 of 2022
Atta Muhammad
Versus
Addl. District Judge, etc.
J U D G M E N T
Date of hearing:
11.05.2023.
Petitioner by:
Mr. Zafar Abbas Khan, Advocate.
Respondent No.7 by:
Mr. Asif Ali Kahloon, Advocate.
MUHAMMAD SAJID MEHMOOD SETHI, J.- Through instant
petition, petitioner has assailed the vires of order dated 18.2.2021 and
judgment dated 17.12.2021, passed by learned Civil Judge and Addl.
District Judge, Mianwali, respectively, whereby petitioner’s request to
cross-examine DW-4 was turned down by the Courts below.
2.
Facts in brief are that respondent No.7, Mushtaq Ahmed
instituted a suit for declaration to the effect that he alongwith petitioner
and respondents No.8 to 11 are legal heirs of deceased Muhammad
Abdullah, thus, are owners in possession of the suit house left by the
deceased. Petitioner and respondent No.11 in their written statements
contended that deceased Muhammad Abdaullah gifted the suit house to
Atta Muhammad/petitioner during his lifetime whereas respondent
No.8/Mst. Sughran Bibi in her written statement alleged that no such
gift was made and all legal heirs are entitled to get their shares from
the suit house. In evidence, said respondent while appearing as DW-4
in her examination-in-chief and cross-examination conducted by
learned counsel for plaintiff repeated her stance taken in written
W.P. No.25275 of 2022
statement. Later on, learned counsel for petitioner requested the Court
that said witness be declared hostile and also sought permission to
cross-examine the said witness. Learned Trial Court vide impugned
order dated 18.2.2021 declined the request of the petitioner. Feeling
aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the learned
Addl. District Judge, Mianwali, who vide judgment dated 17.12.2021
dismissed the same. Hence, this petition.
3.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that since the witness got
recorded her statement adversely against the interest of the petitioner,
therefore, petitioner is entitled to cross-examine her. Further submits
that both the Courts below without observing the real facts of the case
declined the request of the petitioner, hence impugned decisions are
liable to be set aside.
4.
On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.7 submits
that Mst. Sughran Bibi herself appeared before the Court as
independent witness in support of her own version and petitioner did
not call or produce the said lady as witness in support of his version,
therefore, the contention of petitioner to declare the said witness as
hostile with permission to cross examine carries no weight.
5.
Arguments heard. Available record perused.
6.
Admittedly, petitioner and Mst. Sughran Bibi/respodnent No.8
are co-defendants in the suit filed by respondent No.7. Respondent
No.8 has endorsed the claim of plaintiff/respodnent No.7 and in
evidence as DW-4 supported his version unlike other defendants,
who supported the stance of petitioner. The sole point for
determination by this Court is "Whether a defendant has right to
cross-examine the co-defendant? If so, in what circumstances?
7.
The procedure of examination of witnesses is synchronized by
Articles 130 to 161 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Article
130 aims to regulate procedure as to production and examination of
W.P. No.25275 of 2022
witnesses in the Court, while Article 132 elaborates three stages
that might come while recording statement of a witness. First stage
is examination-in-chief by the party who has produced a witness,
second stage is cross-examination by the opposite party and third
stage is re-examination, optional with the party calling the witness.
For the sake of convenience, Article 132 (ibid) is reproduced
hereunder:
132. Examination-in-chief, etc. (1) The
examination of a witness by the party who calls him
shall be called his examination-in-chief.
(2)
The examination of a witness by the adverse
party shall be called his cross-examination.
(3)
The examination of a witness, subsequent to
the cross-examination by the party who called him,
shall be called his re-examination.
8.
The expression "adverse party" is defined in the Black's Law
Dictionary, Sixth Edition at page 53, as "a party to an action whose
interests are opposed to or opposite the interest of another party to
the action". In general, an adverse party is an opposing party in a
lawsuit.
9.
It may be observed that there is no specific provision in the
Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, providing opportunity to a
defendant to cross-examine a co-defendant; however having regard
to the object and scope of cross-examination, it is settled principle of
law that when a statement is made against the interest of a party to
the proceedings, before that evidence could be acted upon, the party
should have an ample opportunity to cross-examine the witness, who
had given the evidence against him. It is only after such an
opportunity is given and the witness is cross-examined then
evidence becomes admissible. In Sarkar on Evidence, Fifteenth
Edition at pages 2182 and 2183, the following discussion is
available:-
Right to cross-examine Co-Accused's and CoDefendant's Witnesses. Sections 137 and 138 of the
W.P. No.25275 of 2022
Evidence Act do not specifically refer to crossexamination of co-defendant's witnesses. But the Court
have to adopt a golden rule that no evidence shall be
received against a co-defendant or co-accused who had
no opportunity of testing it by cross-examination; as it
would be unjust and unsafe not to allow a co-accused
or co-defendant to cross-examine witness called by one
whose case was adverse to his, or who has given
evidence against him. Where it is shown that the
interest between the defendants inter se conflict each
other, the other defendant has necessarily to be treated
as an adversary and he is certainly entitled to crossexamine the other or his witnesses. [Mohd. Ziaulla v.
Sorgra Begum, 1997 AIHC 2628 (2629-2630) (Kant)]
No special provision is made in the Evidence Act for the
cross-examination of the co-accused's or codefendant's witnesses. But the procedure to be adopted
may be regulated by the well-known rule that no
evidence should be received against one who had no
opportunity of testing it by cross-examination; as it
would be unjust and unsafe not to allow a co-accused
or co-defendant to cross-examine witness called by one
whose case was adverse to his, or who has given
evidence against. If there is no clash of interest or if
nothing has been said against the other party, there
cannot be any right of cross-examination.
In "Phipson on Evidence", Tenth Edition, para.
1538., it is provided that:
A defendant may cross-examine a co-defendant or any
other witness who has given evidence against him, and
reply on such evidence though there is no issue joined
between them. (Lord v. Colvin, 3 drew 222; Allen v.
Allen {1894} P. 248 (C.A.); RE Wagstaff, 96 L.T. 605;
Dryden v. Surrey C.C. {1936} 2 All E.R. 535).
It is clear from the above that evidence becomes admissible
after only it passes through the process of cross-examination by the
adverse party regardless of the fact that the adverse party is a
plaintiff or co-defendant. However, the condition precedent is the
conflict of interest. Reference can be made to “Muhammad Imran
Khan and 4 others v. Haji Muhammad Akhtar and others” (PLD
2021 Sindh 510).
10. There is another eventuality where a witness can be declared
hostile when he resiles from earlier statement or material part thereof
which may also be in the form of joint pleadings or examination-in-
W.P. No.25275 of 2022
chief. Permission to cross-examine the witness would also be granted
where the statement is contrary to the evidence which the witness was
expected to give. Reference is made to “Gulzar Mehmood Khan v.
Abdul Waheed” (2016 CLC 848) and “Inayat Ullah v. Riaz Ahmad”
(1998 CLC 1148).
11. Needless to say that the right to allow a party to cross-examine
a witness of his own is discretionary with the Court and this discretion
is to be exercised judiciously. Article 150 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat,
Order, 1984, confers on the Court a wide discretion in allowing a
party calling a witness to put such questions to him as might be put in
cross-examination by the adverse party, where the evidence given by
the witness is unfavourable to the party calling him, or is contrary to
the evidence which the witness was expected to give. In such a case,
the Judge should permit such statements to be tested by
cross-examination if the evidence is to be relied upon. Undeniably, a
party is bound by the evidence it produces i.e. party producing a
witness is bound by whatever statement the witness makes however
when an adverse statement is made by a witness the party producing
the witness may get the witness declared hostile and seek permission
from the Court to cross-examine her for getting rid of her adverse
testimony. However, there is one exception that such permission
should not be allowed by the Court if it reaches to the conclusion that
the object of such cross-examination is to cover up the lacuna in the
evidence.
12. In the case in hand, while submitting written statement,
recording examination-in-chief as DW-4 and even during crossexamination conducted by plaintiff, the stance of respondent
No.8/defendant No.3 remained adverse to the interest of other
defendants and DWs. From the facts of the case, it cannot be
inferred that the said witness came from petitioner’s side because as
per record, learned counsel concluded petitioner’s oral and
documentary evidence on 14.1.2021. However, statement of
W.P. No.25275 of 2022
respodnent No.8 as DW-4 was recorded on 18.2.2021 and even in
presence of written statement of respondent No.8, there was no
hope that said witness would depose in favour of petitioner. In these
circumstances, it cannot be presumed that declaring said witness
hostile and allowing to be cross-examined by a co-defendant would
be an attempt to fill the lacuna.
13. For the foregoing facts and reasons, instant petition is
allowed and the impugned decisions passed by the Courts below are
hereby set aside being illegal and without lawful authority. Learned
Trial Court is directed to allow the petitioner to cross-examine
defendant No.3/DW-4.
(Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi)
Judge
Approved for Reporting
Judge
Comments
Post a Comment