Expected From Trial Court Judges To Be Patient & Tolerant Towards Lawyers During Examination Of Witnesses: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently observed that it is expected from the judges of the Trial court to be patient and tolerant in their approach towards the Trial Court lawyers during the examination of witnesses.

The Bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar observed thus in a matter challenging the order passed by an Additional Sessions Judge whereby the right of the petitioner/accused to cross-examine the Investigating Officer had been closed.

Facts in brief

During the trial for offence under Sections 342, 366, 376 of the IPC, the Investigation Officer was asked a question by the counsel appearing of the petitioner/accused, which, according to the Judge of the trial court, was a matter of argument only and was not relevant, hence, the Judge directed the counsel not to ask such irrelevant questions otherwise his right to cross-examine the witness can be closed.

However, when the subsequent question was asked by the counsel for the petitioner, which according to the Judge was again, irrelevant, and so he closed the right of the petitioner/accused to cross-examine the witness.

Court's observations

The Court perused the proceeding and the subsequent order passed by the Judge of the trial court and observed thus:

"It is apparent that only one question was asked by the counsel for the petitioner prior to the impugned order was passed and regardless of its admissibility or relevance, the learned Judge of the trial court ought not to have closed the right of the petitioner to cross examine the witness."

Further, the Court opined that cross-examination is the only tool available to a defence lawyer to test the veracity of a prosecution witness and that it is the only way out to an accused to clear his name from the alleged offence, hence, the Court noted that his right to cross-examine a witness cannot be curtailed in such a cavalier manner.

Importantly, the Court further remarked thus:

"Cross-examination of a witness is an art which, though, can be performed by any lawyer in a black coat but it is very difficult to master the same as it takes years of hard work and exposure to trials that one can have some expertise in it. It is only through a long and hard exercise of trial and error method that a lawyer learns the art of cross-examination but if the judge presiding over the matter is impatient or edgy, it not only culminates into an order like the impugned one, but also hampers the overall learning process or grooming of a lawyer who, before becoming an expert trial court lawyer, is bound to falter many a times by asking irrelevant or inadmissible questions to a witness in the box. Thus, it is expected from the judges of the Trial court to be patient and tolerant in their approach towards the Trial Court lawyers during the examination of witnesses."

Lastly, the Court expressed its opinion that if a Judge is of the opinion that despite his/her warnings, the counsel continues to ask irrelevant questions, then he can take recourse to the provisions of the Evidence Act, 1872 from Sections 146 to 152 and in some exceptional cases, cost on the counsel could be imposed.

In view of the same, the Court quashed the order of the Judge and the trial Court was directed to recall the Investigating Officer and allow the counsel to cross-examine him.

Case title - Sachin s/o Dinesh Parmar v. State of Madhya Pradesh 

Click Here To Download Order

Read Order