Cross examination

It depends on the witness who is shown to identify his signature, and when he is shown his signature he should see that the signature is the one to which he is the author of the documents. Once that is satisfied the witness can b e cross examined.

For contradicting the veracity of witness and for confrontation of signature irrespective of contents of the documents it can be done. Refer Chapter X  of Indian Evidence Act.

Thank u all!! But my doubt is not cleared still. Under Sec.145 and 146 it is permissible to ask the witness questions. My question is whether the counsel can cover up a document and confront the witness by showing only the signature portion?

      For eg: The witness is seen to be lying. His vakalath is taken and folded up and only his signature is confronted? Can this be done? Is it ethical? Has this practice of covering up portions of document and asking qusetions been deprecated?

Kindly go through decision of Perumal Vs V.Balasubramanian reported in 2011(5) CTC - 416. Can be seen in website of Madras High Court.

In this decison the practice is deprecated but the legal precedents are not understood.   

Thank u all!! But my doubt is not cleared still. Under Sec.145 and 146 it is permissible to ask the witness questions. My question is whether the counsel can cover up a document and confront the witness by showing only the signature portion?

      For eg: The witness is seen to be lying. His vakalath is taken and folded up and only his signature is confronted? Can this be done? Is it ethical? Has this practice of covering up portions of document and asking qusetions been deprecated?

Kindly go through decision of Perumal Vs V.Balasubramanian reported in 2011(5) CTC - 416. Can be seen in website of Madras High Court.

In this decison the practice is deprecated but the legal precedents are not understood.   

 I am of the view that no advocate should play fraud on the court. The practise in the court is that the signature of the witness is shown for identification,  and the documents is shown to the Judge, and on admission of the signature by the witness, the documents is marked by the Judge. In such case the hidden documents which the witness is not aware and by the judge can not be proved against the witness. The game in the court should be with clean hands.

Thats no permissible in evidence. By hiding the document, and by merely showing the signatures, even though asked to the witness if thats his/her signature, it wouldnt be admissible in evidence, unless the witness is not a signatory of the document. If the witness who is being examined is a witness is an identifying witness and who only identifies the signature and doesnt know or is not aware of the context and the material of the document, his evidence to the extent of identification of signature is admissible. There can be a question put forward to the witness if the witness can identify the signatures of the endorsing witness. Further can be asked how he is aware of the signatures of the endorsing witness where the witness under corss will have to elaborate the story how and on what basis he can identify the signatures of other person i.e. endorsing witness.

There is no question of playing fraud on court. The Vakalath is taken from the court itself and the signature in the vakalath is shown. Kindly go thr u the decision of Kapil Corepacks(P) Ltd. Vs. Harbans Lal wherein the apex court has covered a similar point. But there is slight difference in the context. Hence my doubt....   

Kapil Corepacks case relates to examination of parties by the court under civil procedure code.Under the Indian Evidence Act, if the Cross Examiner intend to contradict the witness with his previous writing, his attention should be drawn to his previous writing and not by covering his previous writing. It means the witness should be shown the portion of his writing to contradict the same, and if it is not shown to him, those writing cannot be contradicted. Even in Kapil Corepacks case the Supreme Court held “Confronting a party only with a signature on a disputed and un-exhibited document by adopting the process of covering the remaining portions thereof is impermissible”