Judge not allowing take denial of allegation in cros-examination

bhanudassss (Querist) 19 June 2017 This query is : Resolved
Defendant filed the WS denying all allegations of Petitioner. Petitioner filed evidence in chief repeating all allegations. While cross-examining Petitioner Defendant asked questions ".....allegations are not true?" Those questions were not allowed by the Judge by giving the reason that denial is a part of pleadings, not evidence. Can the judge be said to hold right stand? What are the legal provision or case laws?

Follow Query

Report Abuse

Guest (Expert) 20 June 2017
In cross-examinaton ANY question can be asked!
But they must bear some relevance to the subject-matter. Please consult Ss.146 to 165 of Indian Evidence Act.

P. Venu (Expert) 20 June 2017
The question is quite meaningless. The Judge has rightly disallowed.

bhanudassss (Querist) 20 June 2017
Thanks for the response.
In Ss, 146 to 165 nothing said about questions for plain denial of the allegation; it talks about, contradiciton, omission, admission etc of the witness. Question seeking denial of the allegation refers to subject matter and should be relevant.

If opinion of learned expert P. Venu is to said to be correct then what will be the position when allegations of evidence in chief are not confronted, at least by taking plain denial of the allegations. Will those unconfronted allegations in evidence in chief have any evidential value? Awaiting for answer.

Dr J C Vashista (Expert) 20 June 2017
You are entitled to cross-examine the witness with all relevant issues to demolish his evidence and prove your averments.

If the Court disallowed any such relevant question insist upon recording "disallowed" which the court can not get it recorded. Even if recorded, it will go in your favour at the time of final arguments.

Guest (Expert) 20 June 2017
Mr. Bhanudass,
Your query relates to admissibility of evidence. You have not shared the facts of the case, hence it is difficult to give an accurate or pin-pointed reply.
It could be that there are docunents and we know that contents of documents cannot be rebutted by oral wvidence. If that is the case, try challenging the whole document by stating that it is false. Consult S.91, IEA.

bhanudassss (Querist) 21 June 2017
Jahangirji,
It is only about statements (allegations) made by the witness in the evidence in chief. Will those unconfronted allegations in evidence in chief have any evidential value? Awaiting for answer.

Guest (Expert) 21 June 2017
From my limited understanding, if EFFECTIVE cross-examination has not been conducted; or has been declined by the court (as you stated here) then the statements recorded in the examination-in-chief shall prevail without doubt.
As far as "evidential value" of the deposition is concerned, it depends whether the deposition contains relevant facts and whether they have any probative value.
That's all I know.....