A Project

On

“Phenomenon of Cross Examination”

[Submitted as a partial fulfillment of the requirements for [Link].B (Hons) 5 year integrated
course]

Session: 2019-20

Submitted On: -0-2020

Submitted by: Priyanka Verma Supervised by

Semester: X – B Faculty

Roll No: 74

University Five Year Law College

University of Rajasthan

Jaipur
 DECLARATION

I, Priyanka Verma, hereby declare that this project work titled “Phenomenon of Cross
Examination” is based on the original research work carried out by me under the guidance
and supervision of, Faculty University Five Year Law College, Jaipur.

The interpretations put forth are based on my reading and understanding of the original texts.
The books, articles etc, which have been relied upon by me have been duly acknowledged at
the respective places in the text.

For the present project, which I am submitting to the university, no degree or diploma has
been conferred on me before, either in this or in any other university.

Signature

Priyanka verma

Roll No.74

Semester- X-B
 CERTIFICATE

Faculty

University Five Year Law College

University of Rajasthan

Jaipur

This is certify that Priyanka Verma, student of semester X – B of University Five Year Law
College, University of Rajasthan has carried out the project entitled “Phenomenon of Cross
Examination” under my supervision and guidance. The student has completed research work
in my stipulated time and according to the norms prescribed for the purpose.

[Supervisor]
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I have written this project, “Phenomenon of Cross Examination” under the supervision of ,
Faculty, University Five Year Law College, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur. Her valuable
suggestions herein have not only helped me immensely in making this work but also in
developing an analytical approach this work.

I found no words to express my sense of gratitude for Dr. SanjulaThanvi, Director, University
Five Year Law College, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur for her constant encouragement at
every step.

I am extremely grateful to librarian and library staff of the college for the support and
cooperation extended by them from time to time.

[Priyanka verma]
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page no.

1. Declaration Certificate

2. Certificate

3. Acknowledgment

4. Abstract 1

5. Introduction 2

6. Research methodology 3

 Research objective
 Research question
 Scope of study
 Mode of citation

7. Chapter-1 4-5

1.1 What is cross examination

1.2 Objectives of cross examination

8. Chapter-2 6-8

2.1 Conduct of cross examination

2.2 Common objections which can be raised during cross examination

2.3 Protection of the rights to cross examination: hearsay rule.

Conclusion 9

Bibliography 10
 ABSTRACT

It is important that laws and regulations are promulgated in order to avoid a state of
lawlessness, hence need to explore the Indian law, as well as peruse the cross examination
process in India. Cross examination is an important tool during a legal tussle in a court of
competent jurisdiction owning to the fact that it is one of the viable mean through which the
truth can be separated from falsehood, cross examination is one of the simple process of
fielding a witness question. To become more familiar with it we should consider the subject
from different angle. Be courteous but firm with the witness. Cross-examination does not
require you to be cross. A courteous approach disarms the witness, while a confrontational
approach puts the witness on guard. A judge is likely to come to the defence of a witness
being badgered without good reason. An overly aggressive approach to a witness is also
likely to invoke objections from opposing counsel, which interrupt the flow so that the point
becomes lost or obscured. If a witness is evasive, repeat the question. If a witness continues
to be evasive, the judge will likely caution the witness. If this seems overdue, ask for a
direction from the bench. Remember that little piggies get fed, but hogs get slaughtered. Do
not ask the one question too many. If you get a good answer, move on. Get on to another
topic before the witness can qualify the answer. As a matter of ethics, do not suggest to a
witness that a fact is true unless you have good reason to believe it to be true. It is not a good
idea to lose arguments with a witness in court. If things appear to be heading downhill, use
one of your prepared exit strategies. A prepared range of different exits allows a quick
recovery. For example, if your probing questions raise alarms, you may simply change the
subject without losing face. However, if the witness scores a point at your expense, you may
want to go immediately to a line of questions that discredit the witness such as a prior
inconsistent statement. Listen carefully to the witness. What they say becomes the evidence.
If you are unsure about what you heard, take a break and get the reporter to read back the
question and answer. You may decide that you need to revisit the point.
 INTRODUCTION

Cross-examination is an art form only occasionally practiced by prosecutors, who instead

necessarily focus much of their efforts on direct examination. This is brought on by the
prosecution bearing the burden of proof and the simple realities of many criminal trials where
the defense may choose to present few or no witnesses. DUI cases, however, are often
complex and more scientific or technical in nature than many other types of criminal cases.
Accordingly, the prosecutor’s opportunity to conduct a cross-examination, particularly of an
expert witness, is greater. This monograph was developed to assist prosecutors in
understanding the basic goals, methods, and forms of cross-examination when dealing with
all witnesses. In addition, the monograph provides guidance specific to expert witnesses.
Effective cross-examination is a critical part of any criminal trial. Never is this more true than
when technical or scientific evidence is a central issue for the jury. With this being said,
prosecutors often feel uncomfortable during cross-examination of defense witnesses. This is
not due to lack of ability. Rather, it is caused by insufficient practice, focus, and preparation
for this part of the trial. As prosecutors, we generally expend most of our effort on “proving
our case” in chief and experience a feeling of relief when the prosecution “rests.” In reality,
the State’s case is far from over at the end of the State’s presentation of evidence. The simple
message is that case preparation includes preparing to overcome any defense theory because
it is often when the State’s case ends that the most difficult work, cross-examination of the
defense witnesses, begins. Effective prosecution, at its core, the means presenting sufficient
evidence to convict a defendant of the crimes charged through direct evidence. Keeping this
goal foremost in mind allows a prosecutor to focus more on the case-in chief. Often a
prosecutor will not even know if the defense will present evidence until after the State rests.
At that point, skilled and effective cross-examination of the defense witnesses becomes
critical for a prosecutor. He or she will work through cross-examination of any defense
witnesses with two core goals. The primary goal is preserving the integrity of the State’s case
and the secondary goal is to obtain any favorable facts, concessions or inconsistencies
possible. While a prosecutor should not plan on winning the case through cross-examination
of defense witnesses, a poorly planned or executed cross-examination could impact the
success of the case and the prosecutor’s credibility with the jury. A well-prepared prosecutor
can both obtain helpful factual admissions supporting the State’s case from the defense
witnesses and minimize the defense case through impeachment of the defense witnesses.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The researcher has used doctrinal method and relied upon and relied upon secondary data to
prepare this project.

Research Objectives

The main object to study this project to get information about the cross examination of
witness in the court as the impeaching the credit of the witness by apposite party in court.

Research questions

The phenomenon of the cross examination as that how it will be conducted in the court and
the methods of it to examination and the expert witness also examined in the cross
examination.

Scope of study

The scope of study to this project to know about the some reasonable aspect of the cross
examination in the court by the opposite party as the monograph is intended to assist
prosecutors in successful cross-examination. Careful consideration and adherence to the
thoughtful strategies contained within will increase the chances of the desired outcome, a
verdict of guilt. With time and practice, any prosecutor can become a master of the art of
cross-examination. No matter how natural a seasoned prosecutor’s cross-examination skills
may appear, it took years of training and experience to become truly proficient.

Mode of Citation

The ILI pattern of footnoting style is used throughout the paper in marking the footnotes.
 CHAPTER-1
1.1 WHAT IS CROSS EXAMINATION.
The subject of cross examination is one of the vital importance in the conduct of law cases
because only it as the power to shift the truth from falsehood. According to section 137 of the
Indian Evidence Act the examination of a witness by the adverse party shall be called his
cross examination. Section 138 of Indian Evidence Act provides for the order of examination.
It states that the witness must first be examined in chief then the opposite party cross
examines him and if the party calling him so desires may re- examine. Section 146 of the said
act enable the cross examination to put certain questions in additions to the question based on
the relevant facts of the case. This section gives wide power to the cross examiner beyond the
facts in issue. The main aim of cross examination is to find out the truth and detention of the
falsehood in human testimony. It is designed to destroy of a weekend the force of evidence of
the witness. Cross-examination is an art form only occasionally practiced by prosecutors,
who instead necessarily focus much of their efforts on direct examination. This monograph
was developed to assist prosecutors in understanding the basic goals, methods, and forms of
cross-examination when dealing with all witnesses. In addition, the monograph provides
guidance specific to expert witnesses. Effective cross-examination is a critical part of any
criminal trial. Never is this truer than when technical or scientific evidence is a central issue
for the jury. The exercise of the right of cross examination is justly regarded as one of the
most efficacious test which the law has devised for the discovery of the truth. Right to cross
examination also flow from the principle of natural justice that evidence may not be read
against a party until the same has not been subjected to cross examination or at least an
opportunity has not been given for cross examination. Thus the provisions imbibed in section
138 of Indian Evidence Act is not only a technical rule but it is a rule of essential justice. The
testimony of a witness is not a legal evidence unless it is subjected to cross examination. The
right to cross examination is a statutory rights which vested in a party to the proceedings. The
party who has a right to take part in any enquiry, or a trial can cross examine the witness. A
right to cross examination can rise when a witness even can arise when a witness hostile
under section 154 of the act. Failure to cross examination a witness on some material part of
his evidence or at all may be treated as an acceptance of the truth of that part or the whole of
his evidence.1

1
Aiyer P. Ramathan, Cross Examination- Principle and Precedent,(2011), 4 th edition, Lexis Nexis
Butterworth'sWadhwa, Nagpur page no. at 55-56
1.2 OBJECTIVES FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION.
When a prosecutor takes a case to trial, the primary goal is always a conviction. To achieve
this end, prosecutors will have specific objectives and goals for each portion of the trial.
Before beginning any work on cross-examination, a prosecutor needs to carefully consider
his or her objectives for each witness that will be presented. How can this witness hurt the
case? How can the witness help the case? How important is the witness and how much time
should be spent on cross-examination? Does this witness require any cross-examination at
all? It is important to determine whether or not to examine each and every witness put on by
the defense. If the witness did not hurt the State’s case, cannot help the State’s case and can
offer no additional positive evidence for the State through cross-examination, cross is not
necessary. It is difficult to pass up an opportunity for a devastating cross-exam, but attorneys
must resist the temptation to showcase their skills. Cross-examination by the defense asks the
jury to question what was done procedurally during the stop and arrest, to challenge the
validity of scientific tests or to doubt the law enforcement officer’s competency or even
integrity. The prosecutor’s cross-examination can be an effective tool to repair any damage
that occurred in defense cross or direct testimony by bolstering the jury’s faith in the fairness
of the prosecutor and officer and their search for truth. Many would argue that the practical
purpose of cross-examination is simply to undermine or destroy direct testimony. However,
the legal purpose of cross-examination is a good faith quest for ascertaining truth and the
prosecutor should use it justly and legitimately. Cross-examination of fact witnesses will
differ from that of expert witnesses but a prosecutor’s goals remain the same. Choosing the
type and form of cross-examination, therefore, should be done in light of the State’s theory of
the case and organized in such a manner as to reduce confusion and seek the truth.
Prosecutors should prepare a cross-examination for each witness in light of each of these
goals. This is critical because the defendant’s witnesses may provide the last testimony heard
by the jury prior to closing argument. However, the prosecutor can make use of cross-
examination to ensure that some of that evidence either bolsters the State’s case or
undermines that offered by the defense, or, better yet, both. Cross-examination and its
execution can be varied. Personal choices as to style and techniques will dictate how specific
facts and specific witnesses are approached.2

2
Aiyer P. Ramathan, Cross Examination- Principle and Precedent,(2011), 4 th edition, Lexis Nexis
Butterworth'sWadhwa, Nagpur at page no 58-59.
 CHAPTER-2
2.1 CONDUCT OF CROSS EXAMINATION.
Cross examination comes with the rule which must be strictly adhered to for the process to be
successful and exciting.
 An effective cross examination must begin with deposition. It is not ideal for you
to wait until trial before preparing yours cross examination outlines. Each of your
expected questions must be asked at depositions so you can understand the answer
you will receive at trial. If the answer is what you want then your question read for
trial.
 Don’t ask a question that you are not sure of the answer. The trial not the time for
you to become amazed by the answer you receive. Any surprises rend when you are
investing or receiving responses during interrogation. Answers you need must be
gotten during disposition. When you do your disposition work correctly then you will
get the anticipated answers at trial.
 Best to prepare a cross examination binder. Try to make a cross examination
binder for all your witness. The binder for the witness you are to examine will
contained your outline and disposition materials.
 Make a detail cross examination outline. It begins with you researching on the
topics you want to cover during trial.
 Ask just leading questions. During cross examination, the expected answers from
the witness must be short and straight this will depend on the question you ask.
Leading questions will command straight and readily known answers asking only
leading questions will direct the witness to period answers you already have in our
outline.
 Ask questions that will get a yes answer. The reasons you ask leading questions is
to get a yes. If you want the witness to agree at every questions you ask then it
routinely provokes a yes how often the judges hear a yes impulse the witness has
agreed to every point you’ve raised.
 Include only one fact in a question. Avoid compounding the questions with many
facts. Keep it simple by including just one fact per question. When the questions are
less cumbersome it becomes clear to your witness and provokes a simple and straight
 answer. Single fact questions. Will offer you the opportunity to ask the witness more
leading questions that will get a yes answer.
 Avoid arguments with the witness. It is possible that cross examination falls out of
plans the witness might turn things up against you such that no matter your efforts,
you cannot get the yes most attorney do pick up a fight or argument at this point. If
you find yourself at this spot, it is wise to stop and move to the next questions.
 Start strong and end it’s strong. While organizing your outline it is deal to start with
topics that will hit the nail on the head and close with another strong topics.
 Avoid asking ultimate questions. After you have succeeded in getting the witness to
agree to all of your questions you would wish to land at the ultimate question. Avoid
it you will always get the answer you want.
 Avoid words as correct at the end of your questions. It is acceptable to as leading
questions don’t terminate your questions with words as correct or believe me. It’s
preferable not to ask questions but make statement and make the witness accept what
you say by answering in the affirmation.3

2.2 COMMON OBJECTIONS WHICH CAN BE RAISED DURING CROSS

EXAMINATION.
 Argumentative. When an advocate crossing the witness asks a questions which
without asking for new information makes an arguments.
 Asked and answer. When an advocate crossing the witness ask a question which has
already been answered previously and objection raised.
 Badgering the witness. When an advocate crossing the witness yells or intimated or
threaten a witness and an objection may be raised.
 Beyond the scope. A question asked during cross examination has to be within the
scope of direct examination. Similarly during the re - examination the question to be
within the scope of cross examination.
 Speculation. If the question asked invites or causes the witness to speculate or answer
on the basis of conjecture, objection may be raised by stating calls for speculation.
 Relevance. If the question asked not about the issues at hand in the trial objection
may be raised on the relevance of the question to the ongoing trial.

3
Bansal, B.L, Cross Examination Concept and Perfect, (2015), 5 th edition, Vinod publication (P) ltd, New
Delhi at page no. 110-111.
  No foundation. When the question raised by the counsel lack authenticity or sources.
 Misstatement. This could be inform of mischaracterization of evidence, miscounting
the witness.
 Vague. Question in cross which are confusing, unintelligible, ambiguous to the
witness and may be misunderstood by the witness.

 Hearsay. Such evidence even on record are inadmissible. It is a fundamental rule of

evidence under the Indian law that hearsay evidence is inadmissible.4

2.3 PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS TO CROSS EXAMINATION: HEARSAY

RULE.
The value that the American legal system places on cross-examination as a fact-finding tool
is reflected in the hearsay rule. This rule (legislatively imposed in many jurisdictions,
including federal, but a matter of common law in others) bars the introduction of statements
made out of court if those statements are being offered to prove the truth of what the out-of-
court declarant intended to say. (If the statements are offered to prove something other than
their "truth" perhaps the mere fact that they were said is relevant the hearsay rule poses no bar
to their consideration.) The rationale for the rule is that a fact-finder ought not to rely on the
truth of a statement that someone made when no one had a chance to cross-examine him.
Rather than trust a jury to discount the reliability of these untested statements, the hearsay
rule categorically excludes them from trials, even in those trials in which the person who
made the out-of-court statement actually testifies as a witness. The fear is not simply that the
jury would not be able to tell the difference between a first-hand account and a second- or
third-hand account, but that the jury would be more ready to credit evidence from an out-of-
court declarant (who would not be subject to cross-examination) that is presented through
documentary proof or a naive trial witness than to credit evidence from an in-court witness
subject to cross-examination. In the absence of the hearsay rule, parties would thus have a
disincentive to present their cases through witnesses with personal knowledge of the matters
at issue. Other exceptions, like those permitting one party to introduce any out-of-court
statements by the opposing party, developed out of considerations of fairness and
accountability. Notwithstanding the proliferation of such exceptions in recent years, however,

4
Bansal, B.L, Cross Examination Concept and Perfect, (2015), 5 th edition, Vinod publication (P) ltd, New Delhi
at page no. 112-113
the hearsay rule cuts deeply, frequently preventing the introduction of highly relevant out of
court statements, and encouraging the use of in-court witnesses who can be cross-examined at
trial.5

CONCLUSION
Prosecutors are sworn to achieve justice through the rigorous pursuit of truth. In other words,
no witness should be allowed to provide unchallenged exaggerated, misleading or false
testimony. Famous trial lawyer Louis Nizer described cross-examination as “the only scalpel
that can enter the hidden recesses of a man’s mind and root out a fraudulent resolve” as it
“elicits the truth in innumerable ways.” The Courts of Justice should be cautious in rendering
justice to the litigants. Though the Judges exercise their discretion based on the facts and
circumstances of each and every case, and though they adhere to their own wisdom, it also
shall be imperative on the Judges to warn the litigants of the consequences of their 28
wrongful approach towards Law, which may result in miscarriage of justice. At the same
time, the responsibility of a litigant who approaches the Court is also much more. The litigant
shall have to be due diligent and shall have a careful approach towards the relief sought by
him. The Legal Maxim “Vigilantisms non dormientibus jura subvenient” reminds the
responsibility of the litigants. The Courts of Justice require the parties to the litigation shall
exercise due vigilance and caution. The above maxim means that Law would help those who
are vigilant and would not help those who are asleep over their rights. The duty is cast on all
the stake holders to ensure that there is instance of miscarriage of Justice and also shall
ensure that the Justice Delivery System is properly approached. Cross-examination can pose
the greatest challenge and provide the greatest reward to any trial lawyer. Perfecting the art of
cross-examination requires time and preparation. Successful prosecutors not only prepare for
each trial as it comes but also commit the study of general trial technique, especially cross-
examination. A wealth of information is available from experienced prosecutors and other
valuable resources. This monograph is intended as the starting point on the path to mastering
cross-examination.

5
Bansal, B.L, Cross Examination Concept and Perfect, (2015), 5 th edition, Vinod publication (P) ltd, New Delhi
at page no. 113
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Web sources
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]

Books
Aiyer P. Ramathan, Cross Examination- Principle and Precedent,(2011), 4 th edition,
Lexis Nexis Butterworth'sWadhwa, Nagpur.
Bansal, B.L, Cross Examination Concept and Perfect, (2015), 5th edition, Vinod
publication (P) ltd, New Delhi.