effect of non crossexamination
kuldeep kumar
(Querist) 02 July 2011
This query is : Resolved
if counsel do not cross examine a witness then neccessary inference drawn is he accept the truth but i want to ask is there any exceptions to it.
.
Advocate Bhartesh goyal
(Expert) 02 July 2011
ordinarily inference is drawn when no documentory evidence is available on recrd.
Kiran Kumar
(Expert) 02 July 2011
well it all depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case....if there is enough documentary evidence to refute the allegations of the witness then the party may prefer not to cross examine the witness...
Ajay Bansal
(Expert) 02 July 2011
By non cross examine the witness, it is impossiable to hold or to draw an inference that defence side is not-disputing his/her version.There can be several reasons for non-cross-examination.
Ravikant Soni
(Expert) 02 July 2011
Yes adverse inference is to be drawn. It would be assumed that you admit the examination in chief version..
Ravikant Soni
(Expert) 02 July 2011
In civil cases it is well settled in law that statement made in examination in chief, if not cross-examined, the statement on that point would stand unchallenged.
para 25 in
http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/338063/
Ravikant Soni
(Expert) 02 July 2011
In criminal cases-
It is true that where the testimony of a witness goes uncrossed such testimony should be accepted by the courts. But the merits of the testimony is to be judged with reference to the possibility of the existence of the facts stated by the witnesses. If the existence of the relevant facts stated by the witness stands contradicted by other relevant and reliable evidence on the record of the case then the testimony of the witness is not to be accepted only for the reason that such testimony had remained un-crossed or unrebutted. If any doubt in the truthful character of the uncrossed or unrebutted testimony of the witness is found on examination of the other relevant, reliable and admissible evidence on the record of the case, the uncrossed and unrebutted testimony of the witness .may be considered as of doubtful character and the benefit of doubt may be given to the accused.
DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g
(Expert) 02 July 2011
All told it will always be risky not to cross examine the witness. In simple language the opposite side admits the testimony of the witness not cross examined.Even if contradictory evidence is available on record you have to confront the witness with them.
Many times problems are faced that when contradictory evidence is available on records even the courts objects for such cross questions on the pleas that court will take its congnisance.
Such risks must not be taken since it becomes fatal at appeallate stages. Event at the risk of courts displeasure the witness must be confronted with contradictory evidence.
