Re-examination of Witness Cannot Undo Statement Once Given in Cross Examination: Delhi HC

Delhi High Court Law Insider

Paridhi Arya

Published on June 7, 2022 at 17:44 IST

The Single Judge Bench of Justice Amit Bansal observed that provision of re-examination cannot be used to fill lacunae in evidence and undo the statement of witness given in cross-examination.

The suit was filed seeking injunction against defendant to enter first floor and balcony on the ground floor as defendants are occupants of the place.

On August 2, 2019 issues got framed in the case and to record the evidence in the case the Local Commissioner was appointed by the Court.

The Counsel from defendant on May 20, 2022 requested to re-examine the defense witness which was opposed by the opponent counsel after hearing the submission Local Commissioner referred the matter to High Court seeking its direction.

The Counsel of defense submitted that witness had given answer in ‘yes’ or ‘no’ and so he only seeks proper explanation of the witness on those questions.

This contention was strongly opposed by opponent counsel by submitting that witness is educated and a law graduate and she herself choose to answer in such manner so there is no need of any explanation.

The Court observed that rule re-examination cannot be used for taking explanation on answers made in cross-examination.

“There is no ambiguity in the answer given by the witness that requires explanation through re-examination. In the present case, the witness who is law graduate has consciously chosen to give her in ‘yes’ or ‘no’ without giving any explanation in support thereof.” Court observed.

“Needless to state that any interpretation in respect of the answers given by the witness can be addressed by the counsels at the time of making submissions. Re-examination cannot be used to give a chance to undo the statement of the witness made in cross-examination and fill in the lacunae in evidence.” added by the Court.

The Court held that there is no need of re-examination in the case and ordered to pay rupees 75,000 as additional sum to plaintiff.

The case again placed in front of Local Commissioner for further hearing.

Related Post