The trial court advocates are not developing their skills of cross-examination
- At this juncture, this Court has to necessarily record its displeasure in the manner, in which, the witnesses are cross examined. On a daily basis, this Court is able to find that the standard of cross examination of witnesses has gone down drastically. It is quite unfortunate that the trial court advocates are not developing their skills of cross examination. Most of the questions, which are put to the witnesses, are irrelevant and illogical.
-
For instance, when P.W.6 was cross examined in this case, a question was put to her and was asked to explain as to whether hymen will get ruptured due to insect bite. This would show the amount of ignorance on the part of the counsel on human anatomy and medical jurisprudence. This is only a sample and many such illogical questions are being noticed by this Court on a daily basis.
-
The Trial Court advocates must bear in mind that they are defending the right of a person guaranteed under Article 21 of The Constitution of India. Hence, it is their bounden duty to put appropriate questions during the cross examination, failing which, their client will lose his or her liberty by suffering a sentence. The art of cross examination was considered as a crown in advocacy skills. If this art is lost, the charm in conducting a trial before a court will also be lost.
Efforts were taking the witnesses to turn hostile
35. In many cases, the effort seems to be to make as many witnesses as possible as hostile witnesses rather than effectively cross examining the witnesses by defending the valuable right of an accused person. This Court is forced to record its displeasure in the manner, in which, the cross examination is conducted in courts, with the fervent hope that the leaders of the bar will take note of it and will provide a platform for young juniors to learn the art of cross examination.
- Even though common sense plays a major part during cross examination, thoroughness in knowing the provisions of the Cr.P.C., the Indian Evidence Act and the substantive law goes hand-in-hand to make the cross examination more effective. An advocate, who is not strong in procedural laws, can never be an effective trial lawyer and he will not be able to effectively cross examine a witness. This lament made by this Court should hopefully pave way for an improvement in the quality of trial, which is conducted in subordinate courts and more particularly in criminal trials.
Party
A.Muthupandi vs. State rep.by the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras – Criminal Appeal Nos.245 of 2016 & 154 of 2017 – Dated : 03.4.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/index.php/casestatus/viewpdf/1030793
