Suggestion in cross-examination are no evidence.
Shri Joshi argued that the Doctor ought to have made it clear as to from where and when anticoagulant and preservative were brought and at what place that substances were preserved. Looking to Rule 4, no such requirement is necessary. Once he says that he had prepared the phial with anticoagulant andpreservative, then Rule 4 is substantially complied with. Only a suggestion was put in the cross-examination that he did not personally add the anticoagulant and preservative in the phial. That suggestion has been denied by the Doctor. In cross-examination, more than one suggestions were put to which the Doctor has denied. In case of KHIMJIBHAI KURJIBHAI vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT, reported in 1982 Cr.L.R. (Guj), P. 381, it has been held that
" Suggestion in cross-examination are no evidence. This proposition of law is good both in the case of the prosecution and the defence. Mere hurling of some such suggestions which are denied, can hardly take the place of proof or evidence. The Law of Evidence is alike both for the prosecution and for the defence. If the accused wants to establish a certain fact, he has to lead evidence on that score. Such suspicion cannot have any place in the realm of appreciation of evidence. We reiterate that a suggestion denied by a witness remains only asuggestion and has no evidentiary value at all"
