Exclusive HOLI Discounts!
Get Courses and Combos at Upto 50% OFF!
Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Perjury and cross examination

(Querist) 15 September 2012 This query is : Resolved 
If somebody lies under oath, he can be prosecuted for perjury. But what about lies told & recorded in cross examination?
If a person records fact A in cross examination and you have documentary proof contradicting this fact A, can u put sec 34o on that person?
What is the best way out.
1) Producing this documentary proof as soon as he records fact A during cross
2) Bring this up in arguments to disprove his evidence/statement
3) Applying for sec340 on next possible date?
ajay sethi (Expert) 15 September 2012
if he has lied in cross you must confront him with documentary evidence which contradicts lies told in cross .
the said document should be placed on record .
these inconsistencies can be used for your advantages during arguments .
rajiv_lodha (Querist) 16 September 2012
Can documents contradicting his fact A be placed as exhibits in file while cross is going on?
Nadeem Qureshi (Expert) 16 September 2012
340 is the best way
rajiv_lodha (Querist) 18 September 2012
Anything admitted in cross can be taken as "statement under oath"?
Tajobsindia (Expert) 20 September 2012
Since the queriest got satisfied by various replies hence closing this query by hitting Resolved drop down.

------------
Recall of above; if the queriest says now that he is not satisfied then I'm obliged to Open his query and answering it seperately as below.
Guest (Expert) 20 September 2012
Dear Tajobsindia,

Did you see the latest query of the previous day of the querist, which has not been replied, or you have the authority of the Adminsitrator or the querist to treat the query as solved on behalf of them?
rajiv_lodha (Querist) 20 September 2012
Anything admitted in cross can be taken as "statement under oath"?

This question still remains here
Tajobsindia (Expert) 20 September 2012
Replying to "Anything admitted in cross can be taken as "statement under oath"?"

An admission of the opposite party to the proceeding may be produced for the purpose of proving a party's own case. It is the best evidence which can be produced in proof of the party's case, and although the proof of such admission is not conclusive against the opposite party, nevertheless it is such strong evidence of the facts admitted that the burden of proving the contrary is upon the party making the admission.

He can do this only when he gives a satisfactory explanation that the admission was wrong or made under circumstances which render it "unfit to be relied upon.

A duty is cast upon him to offer an explanation of the circumstances under which a wrong admission was made. If he does not offer an explanation, the burden is not discharged.

The purpose of proving an admission of a party is not to contradict a statement given by the party as a witness to the case. The purpose is to prove the case of the party who relies on the admission.

It is true that a statement on oath (given as a witness) of the party making an admission will have to be considered along with the admission and unless an explanation as to the circumstances in which the admission was made is given or it is otherwise proved that the admission was erroneous, the statement contrary to. the admission must be taken to be unreliable, and in this indirect way it may be said that the oral statement on oath is contradicted by a previous admission.

Kindly now self read commentary on S. 145 Indian Evidence Act or shift this query from Expert section to Forum where better extended reply may be given in case above still does not satisfy you.

------------

Mr. Dhingra,

Leaving this query OPEN in case you still have problems in stead of solutions.
Guest (Expert) 20 September 2012
Mr. Tajobs,

Why should I have any problem with the query being open or resolved? Evidently, it was only you who seemed to have some problem in seeing the query open when the querist sought some more clarifications by posting his supplementary query not long before, but merely a day back. This fact is confirmed by the querist himself by staing "Anything admitted in cross can be taken as "statement under oath"? This question still remains here, contrary to your declaration that the querist was satisfied and you declared the matter to have been resolved.


You need to be the querist or approved LAWyersclub expert to take part in this query .


Click here to login now



Similar Resolved Queries :