Is this next to impossible to win 498a for husband?

Wife winning percentage in dowry cases is less than 2%..... you understood it in different way.... are you wife side or husbnad side.

winning of the case depends on cross examination of the complainant and other wittnesses.

Don't go by the stats.

A lawyer who knows the art of cross examination can drive home a conviction even in the most feeble case, whereas a defence counsel who is impeccable in the art of cross examination can tear apart even the most robust prosecution case. With a good cross examination a lawyer can change the very place of occurence of the alleged crime. It is this art which holds the key to a criminal case, more so a case involving injury to another.

Ashish Davessar

Advocate

Supreme Court of India

Punjab and Haryana High Court

In cross examination true can not become false but fact may be represented differently by encashing the witnesses inefficiencies.

But if the case is simple then proving it will be simple.

I differ completely with Munirathnam.

Cross-examination is a device which can be effectively used for not only 'separating' truth from falsehood but also for 'replacing' falsehood with truth and truth with falsehood. A good cross-examiner can change the very course of the case. He can dislodge the case of the opposing party in the cross-examination itself, without having to cite any judicial precedent.

Ashish, I dont know whether you are correct or incorrect in your beliefs but sounds like you could have saved "KASAB or AFZAL GURU"

I have big list of instances to add on  but I think it is enough,  may be I could be better cross examinner?  or It is enough to put truth in simple words and it does its job wonderfully.

"Truth is the most leathal weapon ever known" It is us who fear to use over some illogical arguments.

The example you have given is preposterous and, therefore, not enough. For your knowledge, it is the truth which loses and falsehood which champions in the court more often than not. Come into legal practice and you would agree with me. Things like these sound good and inspiring on paper but the ground reality is a far cry which people like you obsessed with theory of law, would not understand. Leave apart being a cross-examiner, people like you would not be able to speak when confronted with some of the most intricate provisions of law.

"Taste of truth is always bitter"

Sometimes I laugh reading your comments but one thing I have to say that your legal english-latin vocabulary is very good.

I still wonder how you came to following conclusion without even knowing me- people like you would not be able to speak when confronted with some of the most intricate provisions of law.

Most of the people like you always drew such inferences when they loose arguments.

Somepeple like you believe that they play GOD in court of law. I don't care about them and ground realities, If some thing is right, It is worth to fight for it, live for it, die for it. I am fighting for my own justice and I will be fight irrespsctive of someone's talent. Your assumption is correct that I am not law expert but believe me what I am expert of is well enough to go and learn anything. You might have heard of IIT that will clear your rest of doubts. 

You somehow demoralized all the people fighting for their truths stating , "You got talent to make truth a lie and vice- versa." I am leaving your discussion here only, It is not worth to discuss.

@ Auther- Winning or loosing a case is one thing but we got  to believe ourself that we have done nothing wrong. You will be hearing lot of things that may disappoint you but you got to have full belief on your truth, stick to it. Let the 1000 talented people come and see if they can move you even a inch. There are so many people who claim to be very genious but when they face truth all the arguments become preposterous.

Go on laughing to your heart's content. If there is anyone you are laughing at it is yourself, your ignorance and your ability to hijack and manipulate the subject of a conversation in order to derogate someone who doesn't give you the answers you want to cull out. All that you can do is laugh.  I remain unfazed and stand by what I have said. I will not say something which my conscious and experience tell me is wrong, just to get 'likes' from people like you. I would rather like to demoralize and annoy people by saying something which I consider 'just' and practical' rather than acquiesce to something which in my opinion is unworkable.

Perhaps it is lawyers like us who have pampered people like you by engaging in pro-bono conversations and responding to your grossly illogical and ignorant comments, which otherwise ought to be ignored with utmost contempt. I shall do the same now.

Now laugh again if you want but do remember what you are going to laugh at.

Ashish,

You will be more itelligent if you understand how the truth drives normal citizen. Also you ry to see whether law is supporting such normal citizen else you work hard to make the law understandalbe to citizen. 

Else you may not do justice to your clients as per the clients though you have done good job to them.

There can be no generic statement to this effect, every case is fought on its on merits. The conviction rate is low, because more than 90% of cases are settled. Otherwise the conviction rate is healthy 25-30%, which is at par ot lil higher than the average conviction rate of crimes in India.

Regards,

Shonee Kapoor

@ Ratnam

Don't teach me how should I get justice for my clients. You are a scientist and it would be better if you remain one. People like you who know nothing about law except to copy and paste from a SC judgment and yet display the audacity of talking rudely to the lawyers and teaching them 'logic' at the altar of 'absurdity' ought to be rejected by the legal fraternity as a whole and left stranded in your so called fight for justice.

no its not like that..

fight your case on merits and be in touch with a person who has won his case.

Ashish,

You avoided stright answer to my point and telling some other story ..... hence my view is supported by law and is not barred by any law.

Do not say that only lawyers know the law, if it so lawyers should not recomend the people to parliament who does not have law degree in their hands.