Cross-Examination Cannot Encompass Questions Which Are Scandalous, Intend To Cause Humiliation To Witness: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that the cross-examination cannot encompass questions that are scandalous or intended to cause humiliation to the witness.

Justice Asha Menon further observed that while there is a right to ask questions of a witness to impeach his creditworthiness, it cannot descend to harassment and humiliation of the witness.

The Court added thus:

"Thus, it is clear that both examination and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts. The reason why cross-examination is not confined to the facts to which the witnesses testified is obvious. The witness who is examined-in-chief is from the side of the party who has called him. Therefore, his testimony would be, in-chief relating to the case of that party. But since the opposite side is also required to prove their case, the right has been given to such adverse party to put questions that would be beyond the examination-in-chief."

"Nevertheless, cross-examination cannot be such that has no bearing to the case before the learned Trial Court nor can it be a vexatious or a roving inquiry. The cross-examination cannot encompass questions that are scandalous or intended to cause humiliation to the witness, on the plea that the questions can go beyond the examination-in-chief."

The Court further opined that the cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified in his examination-in- chief.

It added that the re-examination is to be directed to the explanation of matters referred to in the cross-examination and even if a new matter is introduced in re-examination, the adverse party would have a further right to cross-examine on that matter.

The Court was dealing with a plea challenging the order or cross examination dated 7th May, 2022 in a Complaint Case filed under sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

The petitioner's grievance was that as per the impugned order, during the course of examination of a defence witness, the Trial Court disallowed two questions, as being irrelevant to the matter in issue.

"Any litigant who comes to the court with a grievance and every litigant who defends a case against him have necessarily to produce evidence in support of their case. The law of evidence governs the recording of evidence so that the inquiry is not rendered a meandering exercise, but is focused towards a fair decision of the lis," the Court observed.

The Court observed that the Trial Judge has to keep a close watch on the examination of a witness during examination-in-chief or cross- examination and even during re-examination, when permitted.

"Only such questions must be allowed which are relevant to the matter at hand and to the rival stands, elucidating or disproving the rival cases. Where the court comes to a conclusion that a question, particularly, in cross-examination is irrelevant or prompted by such motives such as harassment or annoyance to the witness or to delay the conclusion of the cross-examination of the witnesses by embarking on a rambling course, the Trial Judge is well empowered to put an end to such questioning," the Court said.

On the facts of the case, the Court observed that the petitioner ought to have established how the questions were relevant and that merely because certain questions were put during the cross-examination of the petitioner cannot be a reason enough, as relevance is not a question of parity.

"The questions put to the complainant in his cross- examination would have been considered for their relevance and are not in question before this Court," it noted.

Upholding the impugned order, the Court dismissed the petition.

"It is made clear that nothing contained in this order shall be an expression on the merits of the case to be decided after due trial," the Court said.

Case Title: KANWAL NAIN SINGH MOKHA v. REKHA KHURANA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 742

Click Here To Read Order