Leading Questions

“A leading question is a leading one when it indicates to the witness the real or supposed fact which the examiner expects and desires to have confirmed by the answer.”

-Jeremy Bentham

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Leading questions are those that suggest to the witness the answer that the person posing the question desires.
• Leading questions are generally prohibited, but they are allowed in the cross-examination of a witness and in the examination of a witness who is declared hostile.
• The various provisions included in the Indian evidence act,1872 and related case laws.

INTRODUCTION

A leading question is an inquiry that proposes a specific response and contains data the examiner is hoping to have affirmed. The utilization of leading questions in court to evoke declaration is confined in nature to diminish the capacity of the analyst to direct or impact the evidence introduced in the court. Contingent upon the conditions, leading questions can be either inappropriate or legitimate. A leading question in court implies that the witness is being questioned with an end goal to reveal key data. Leading questions might be too obtrusive, and the opposite side might object, making them to be re-examined or excluded.

An illustration of a leading question may be "Isn't it true that you were home on the night of...isn't it? A leading question in sales might be "When do you like the appliance to be delivered", implying that the sale can be carried on.

 Leading questions are likewise significant in research as an approach to collect information and data, however question makers should be mindful so as to try not to lead question which can come out as biased, which direct the respondent in a particular manner and to answer in a particular way.

A leading question suggests a particular answer that the questioner desires – most often a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer. These types of questions operate on preconceived notions that the survey creator holds. In a court, the utilization of leading questions is disliked, on the grounds that individuals believe that they compromise the witness and possibly manipulate the evidence which the person gives in the court. These sorts of inquiries are generally just permitted in quite certain circumstances, for example, laying out personal data from an observer when the person initially shows up on the stand.

With regards to legal procedures, evidence assumes a basic part in deciding the result of a case. The Indian evidence act, 1872, administers the suitability and significance of realities in issue through the utilization of judicial proceedings. In this article, we will investigate the idea of leading questions, their motivation, and their importance in the Indian legal system.

Examination of witnesses

The examination of witnesses is a principal part of any judicial procedure. It helps in laying out claims and finding reality. The Indian Evidence Act of 1872's three stages of witness examination are: examination in-chief, cross examination, and re-examination.

Examination-in-Chief (Section 137)

Examination in-chief is the underlying examination of a witness by the party who calls him. The witness addresses questions asked by the party who has called him under the observance of the court. Only the facts that are relevant to the issues are included in the testimony.

Cross-Examination (Section 137)

Cross examination is the assessment of a witness by the adverse party. After the examination in-chief, assuming the contrary party needs to, they can assume control over the witness and cross-question him about his past responses. The contrary party might ask him any inquiry regarding every applicable fact and not just the facts talked about during the examination in-chief.

Re-Examination (Section 137)

Re-examination is the assessment of a witness, resulting to the questioning by the party who called him. Assuming irregularities or disparities emerge out of questioning, the party has the option to reexamine his own observers. Be that as it may, in the event of reconsideration, no new inquiry or truth will be allowed to be asked without the court's assent.

Leading questions as in Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Before the enactment of the Indian evidence act in 1872, the admissibility and importance of realities in issue were chosen in light of customs and use, especially during the Mughal time frame. However, India witnessed the codification of laws with British rule, including the Indian Evidence Act, which significantly altered the legal landscape.

Leading questions, as characterized by legitimate researchers like Jeremy Bentham and Sir James Fitz James Stephen, are questions that recommend the ideal response to the observer. These questions are phrased in a way that prompts the witness to respond in a particular way, which has an impact on the case's outcome. The target of utilizing leading questions is to learn reality and test the believability of the witness. Under the Indian evidence act, the idea of leading questions is talked about in sections 141 to 143, which are a part of chapter 10 of Part III. A main inquiry is one that clues at the ideal response, either directly or in a roundabout way. The response to a leading question is in many cases restricted to a straightforward "yes" or "no," giving exactness and rightness to the proof introduced.

Provisions relating to leading questions.

Section 141: Leading Questions

Section 141 of the Indian evidence act characterizes leading questions as those that propose the response that the examiner hopes to get. These inquiries intrinsically show or contain the response, frequently leaving the observer with restricted choices for reaction. For instance, a lawyer could inquire, "The respondent had a corporate firm with a mala fide goal, right?" This sort of driving inquiry is decisively used to approve the witnesses’ assertions for the examiner.

The inquiry itself signifies the response in it. The answer is implied in the question, but it may also be implied directly at times. The reason for an examination in chief, that is addressing of the witness by the party who has called him, is to empower the witness to tell the court by his mouth the significant realities of the case. He should be asked about the relevant facts, and he should be given as much freedom as possible to respond based on his knowledge.

The response ought not be proposed. The inquiry ought not be outlined as proposing the response too. The inquiry shouldn't convey an inbuilt response in it. Any such inquiry which recommends to the observer the response which he is supposed to make is known as a 'leading question'.

Section 142: Limitations on Asking Leading Questions

While leading questions can be successful in cross-examination, section 142 of the Indian evidence act forces constraints on their utilization. As per this part, leading questions should not be posed to in examination- in-chief or re-examination without the authorization of the court. Notwithstanding, the court might allow leading questions in these phases of the procedures for issues that are basic, unchallenged, or currently adequately demonstrated.

If protested by the opposite party, leading questions should not be posed to in that frame of examination in chief, or a re-examination without the consent of the Court.

Exceptions to this rule

Section 142 of the Indian evidence act gives exceptions for the common guideline expressed previously. By the order of the Court, the analyst might place leading questions in examination in chief or re-examination.

• As to matters which begin.
• Which are unchallenged.
• Matters in which the opinion of the Court has already been proved.

The Court can permit a party examining his witness to put leading questions in the process of cross examination. These are exceptions under section 154 of the Indian evidence act.

Permission of the court

There is no legitimate obstacle in placing leading questions during the examination in chief if the opposite side doesn't object even without authorization of the Court. Need to get authorization from the Court to put leading questions would emerge just in the possibility that the contrary side takes a protest. Regardless of whether the contrary side objects, the Court has expansive reasonability in permitting leading questions to be put.

The second part of section 142 of the Indian evidence act shows that the Court has no reasonability to not permit a leading question assuming it connects with unchallenged issues or initial matters or matters previously demonstrated. The reasonability to permit or not permit a leading question can be practiced by the Court just when such a leading question connects with issues other than those presented previously.

• Varkey Joseph V. State of Kerala

The violation of India's Constitutional Article 21 is the subject of this case. It isn't reasonable for the examiner to pose inquiries such that the witness can answer yes or no that empowers the witness to evoke such responses. This will be viewed as an infringement of Art.21.His individual life and freedom will be thought of as hurt. The question cannot be asked in a way that only allows for a yes or no response. This encroaches on the option to fair procedure and trial.

• Barindra Kumar Ghose and Ors. V. Emperor

It was held for the situation that the court ought to be there to guarantee the legitimacy of a leading question regardless of whether it can be posed or not. The court should present to actually take a look at the reasonability of the inquiry. The court decides the legitimacy of the leading question, not the hands of the council who is posing the leading question.

Section 143: Permissibility of Leading Questions in Cross-Examination

Situations in which leading questions can be asked:

• • Where they are not objected to by the adverse party.
• Where the adverse party objects but the court overrules the objection.
• Where they deal with the matter of undisputed or introductory nature of the matter in question has already been satisfactorily proved.

Leading questions may always be asked in cross-examination.

In questioning, leading questions are permitted and assume a vital part in testing the validity of the witness. Section 143 of the Indian evidence act expresses that leading questions might be posed to in cross-examination without any sort of objection from the opposite party. This arrangement guarantees that the examiner has the opportunity to control the course of addressing and inspire the vital data.

It can be asked where it isn't objected by the adverse party. A leading question may likewise be put when the opposite party objects to it, yet the court overrules the complaint on the off chance that it is according to the court that the inquiry relates to issues which are basic or undisputed or which have been adequately demonstrated. The court will allow leading questions as to issues which are early on or undisputed, or which have as it would see it, been as of now adequately proved.

• Barindra Kumar Ghose and Ors. V. Emperor

It was held for the situation that the court ought to be there to guarantee the legitimacy of a leading question regardless of whether it can be posed or not. The court should present to look at the reasonability of the inquiry. The court decides the legitimacy of the leading question, not the hands of the council who is posing the leading question.

Section 146- Questions lawful in cross-examination

Questions are permitted to test the veracity of the witness concerning his trustworthiness to persuade the court how much the witness is dependable and trustworthy. This part likewise permits to discover the character of the observer and the position he holds throughout everyday life. The purpose behind such inquiries is to lay out whether the observer is a genuine observer or an expert observer giving biased evidence upon the instigation of other people. The personality of a witness is observed through inquiries to shake his credit subsequently uncovering his truth. While the witness is being cross-examined, he can be asked questions that will make a general understanding of the witnesses’ character and how much reliable his words are. It can be done to:

• To test his truthfulness.
• To find out who is what is his position in life.
• To shake his credit, by attacking his character, albeit the response to such inquiries could tend directly or by implication to criminate him or could uncover or tend directly or in an indirectly to open him to a punishment or relinquishment.

Section 147 - When witnesses to be compelled to answer.

Section 147 supplements the arrangement in section 146 by giving that the question that the examiner puts to the witness relates to a relevant fact the provisions of section 132 will apply. Section 132 gives that the inquiry connects with an important truth, the witness will undoubtedly respond to the inquiry and can't be pardoned from the noting it just on the ground that the response will expose him to some thoughtful or criminal liability. Yet anything that answer the witness will be constrained to give will not be utilized against him as proof, then again, assuming the response is misleading the observer might be indicted for giving bogus evidence.

Section 148- Court to decide when question shall be asked and when witness compelled to answer.

In the event that any such inquiry connects with a matter not pertinent to the suit or continuing, besides to the extent that it influences the credit of the witness by harming his personality, the Court will conclude whether the witness will be constrained to respond to it, and may, assuming it thinks fit, caution the witness that he isn't obliged to respond to it. In exercising its discretions, the Court shall have regard to the following considerations:

1. Questions of this kind are appropriate if they are of a nature such that their truth would have a significant impact on the Court's assessment of the witness's credibility regarding the subject of his testimony.
2. Such inquiries are improper if the attribution which they pass relates on to issues so far off in time, or of such a person, that the reality of the attribution wouldn't influence, or would influence in a slight degree, the assessment of the Court with respect to the believability of the witness on the issues to which he affirms.
3. Such inquiries are inappropriate if there is an extraordinary imbalance between the significance of the attribution made against the witnesses' personality and the significance of his proof.
4. The Court may, assuming it sees fit, draw from the witnesses' refusal to reply, the deduction that the response assuming if given would be opposing.

• In Bombay Cotton manufacturing Co. v. R.B. Motilal Shivlal, it has been brought up that such inquiries connect with pertinent realities and are significant just to the issue whether the witness ought to or is not accepted.

Section 149 - Question not to be asked without reasonable grounds.

No such inquiry as is alluded to in section 148 should be inquired; except if the individual asking it has sensible reason for imagining that the attribution which it conveys is all around established.

Section 150 - Procedure of Court in case of question being asked without reasonable grounds.

Section 150 is the punishment that might follow against a reckless cross-examination, assuming the court is of assessment that the inquiries were posed without sensible grounds.

It specifies the procedure the court must follow in relation to the advocate when he asks questions without a valid reason. The court might answer to the High Court or to the Bar council of the State, in which such an advocate enrolled his name. The court can think about the inquiries without sensible grounds as contempt of court or potentially professional misconduct.

Section 151 - Indecent and scandalous questions

Section 151 of the evidence act contributes a court with the power or circumspection to forbid questions. The trial judge isn't simple computerization, however, is assumed cleverly to control the direction of the cases in the court and it is one of his significant capabilities to see that outrageous issues are not presented in the record except if they are important for the appropriate decision of the case.

• Mohinder Singh V. State of Punjab

It was held that the trial judge can't allow to pose an inquiry which is irritable, unacceptable, and scandalous in nature. The inquiry will likewise not address the evil nature and unacceptable responses. The strategy of court ought not be deferred by the leading questions. No hindrance ought to be there while doing so.

• In Prakash v. state of Maharashtra, it has been held that no scandalous question ought to be put except if there are reasonable grounds to trust them to be valid.

Section 152: - Questions intended to insult or annoy.

The court will preclude any inquiry which appears to it to be intended to affront or annoy, or which, however legitimate, appears to the court unnecessarily hostile in nature.

CONCLUSION

Leading questions are intended to direct or propose explicit responses, possibly impacting the reaction of the observer. It's critical to take note of that the admissibility of leading questions relies upon the unique circumstance, as framed by section 141 of the Indian evidence act. These inquiries are precarious inquiries which can at times prompt the acquirement of misleading testimony from the witness. For the most part, the example followed by the examiner in the main inquiry is in yes or no. We can say that they are close-ended and rhetoric in nature. The witness has an exceptionally restricted choice to portray his form of truth. Sec. 141 and 142 give the leading questions' tendency, degree, and extent. The fundamental rule is observer should advise the court regarding regulation truly what he had seen. The witnesses’ poses just the inquiries which he needs to get and flags the witness a smidgen of the ideal response.

During examination-in-chief or re-examination, leading questions are not allowed. This constraint is set up to keep the inquiries from unduly impacting or moulding the declaration of the witness by recommending replies. The point is to keep up with the respectability of the witnesses' record and guarantee a fair and unprejudiced legal cycle.