Evidence
Devnandan Sharma
(Querist) 07 February 2012
This query is : Resolved
In a civil proceeding, a winess opposite to me filed his witness statements by way of affidavit and the same is considered his examination-in-chief. If I do not cross-examine him, what would be its legal implications and effects?
1. Would it mean that I accepted his depostions as true?
2. Would the Court hold the depositions true only because the witness was not cross-examined?
3. Would the Court not examine the truth of the depositions only because the same were not opposed by way of cross-examination?
ajay sethi
(Expert) 07 February 2012
1) if you do not cross examine witness his evidence will go in unchallenged . it means what he has deposed is correct .
2) court has granted you sufficent opportunity to corss examine him . if you fail to do so court can rely upon his testimony .
Deepak Nair
(Expert) 07 February 2012
1 & 2:- If you do not cross examine, the judge can rely on the deposition of the witness as his statement is not at all disproved and nor rebutted.
3:- Examination and cross examinatin of witness are not the duty of the court. It is the duty of the palintiff and defendant.
V R SHROFF
(Expert) 07 February 2012
Would it mean that I accepted his depostions as true?
Ans: YES
Would the Court hold the depositions true only because the witness was not cross-examined?
Ans: YES
3. Would the Court not examine the truth of the depositions only because the same were not opposed by way of cross-examination?
Ans: YES, court will not examine anything. Matter goes against you beyond repair, Even Appeal becomes useless without evidence .
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 07 February 2012
What is the actual problem?
It seems to be an academic query which does not disclose the facts situation of the case.
Dr V. Nageswara Rao
(Expert) 08 February 2012
1. A party has a right to cross examine a witness of the adverse party. But it is up to him to choose to actually cross examine him or not.
2.If a party is given the opportunity to cross examine and cross examines him or he chooses not to cross examine, the testimony of the witness goes into the record of the Court.
3. If you choose not to cross examine, it means you have not challenged the veracity of the witness and it is taken that you accepted his testimony.
4. Just because the testimony has gone unchallenged, that does not at all mean that the Court is going to treat his deposition ss the Biblical truth.Depending on the circumstances of the case, the Court might simply ignore his evidence if the Court finds that it is not corroborated by other evidence.
5. As a rule of prudence, no Court will give a judgment on the basis of one witness' testimony just because he has not been cross examined.
6 So have hope and bulid up other evidence strongly in your favour.
R Trivedi
(Expert) 11 February 2012
The point is why have you not cross examined him ? If in his affidavit you have found some thing damning you, then only way to counter that is by the way of cross examination ony. It is the right of opposing party to cross examine the witness. If you have not exercised that right, then obviously benefit regarding the statement in the affidavit goes against you, but as rightly stated by Mr Nageshwara Rao, in case of multiple witness cases, courts do not tend to take decision based on one or two such lapse. It all depends on the factual matrix of the case, if you feel that you must cross examine him to counter him, then please submit an application to the court stating the clear reasons for your lapse, depending on the stage of trial court may grant you the opportunity.
