'Standard Of Cross Examination Has Gone Down Drastically, Trial Court Advocates Not Developing Their Skills': Madras High Court
While dealing with an appeal challenging the conviction in a rape case, the Madras High Court recorded its displeasure at the manner in which cross-examination is being carried out in the trial courts. It is quite unfortunate that the trial court advocates are not developing their skills of cross examination, said the court.Justice Anand Venkatesh said that the art of cross-examination...
While dealing with an appeal challenging the conviction in a rape case, the Madras High Court recorded its displeasure at the manner in which cross-examination is being carried out in the trial courts. It is quite unfortunate that the trial court advocates are not developing their skills of cross examination, said the court.
Justice Anand Venkatesh said that the art of cross-examination was considered a crown in advocacy skills and if this art is lost, the charm of conducting a trial before a court will also be lost.
"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."
In the present case, the appellant contended that there were contradictions in the statements of the two doctors who had examined the victim child. He also claimed that the case was a false one based on prior enmity. However, the court noted that other than making the contentions, the accused failed to establish any such contradiction through cross-examination.
The court also said most of the questions, which are put to the witnesses, are irrelevant and illogical. Pointing to the present case, the court gave an example of how during cross-examination one of the questions put forward to the doctor was whether a hymen will get ruptured due to an 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," said the court.
The court added that in most cases, efforts seems to be made to make witnesses hostile rather than effectively cross-examine them. It said that knowledge in the procedural laws is necessary to make cross-examination more effective.
"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."
The court hoped that the members of the bar would take note of the issue and provide a platform to young lawyers to learn the art of cross examination which would help in the improvement of the quality of trials in the subordinate courts.
Case Title: A Muthupandi v. State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 120