Examination-in-chief.-This will ordinarily be in the form ot a connected narratiyve.

brought out by questions put to the witness by the party calling him. It must relate to
relevant facts [s. 138(2)]. No leading questions can be asked (s. 142).
"Unless evidence of reputation be admissible, witnesses, must, in general merely speak
to facts within their own knowledge, and they will not be permitted...to express their own
belief or opinion...Though a witness, in general, must depose to such facts only as are
within his own knowledge. the law does not require him to speak with such expression of
certainty as to exclude all doubt. For, whatever may be the nature ot the subject, if the
witness has any personal recollection of the fact under investigation, he may state what
he remembers concerning it, and leave the jury to judge of the weight of his testimony. If
the impression on his mind be so slight as to justify the beliet that it may have been
derived from others, or may be some unwarrantable deduction of his own dull
understanding or lively imagination, it will be rejected."*
On some particular subjects, positive and direct testimony may often be unattainable,
and, in such cases, a witness is allowed to testify to his belief or opinion, or even to draw
inferences respecting the fact in question from other facts, provided these last facts be
within his personal knowledge." Thismode of examination, however, chiefly prevails on
questions ofscience or trade, where, from the difticulty, and ocasional impossibility, of
obtaining more direct and positive evidence, persons of skill, sometimes called experts,
are allowed, not only to testify to facts, but to give their opinions in evidence."
On the other hand...the opinions of skilled witnesses cannot be received when the
inquiry relates to a subject which does not require any peculiar habits or course of study to
quality a man to understand it. Thus, evidence is inadmissible to prove that one name, or
one trade mark, so nearly resembles another as to be calculated to deceive, or that the
make-up of one tin of coffee is so like another as to be calculated to deceive purchasers
Witnesses are not permitted to state their views on matters of moral or legal obligation, or
on
the manner in which other persons would probably have been influenced had the parties
acted in one way rather than another...To put it briefly, a witness may not, on other than
scientific subjects, be asked to state his opinion upon a question of fact which is the very
ISSue tor the jury, as, for instance, whether a driver is careful; a road dangerous; or an
assault or homicide justifiable. Nor may he be asked whether a clause in a, contract
restricting trade is reasonable or unreasonable, for this is a question for the Judge.8
The opinions of scientific witnesses are admissible in evidence, not only where they
rest on the personal observation of the witness himself, and on facts within his own
knowledge, but even where they are merely founded on the case as proved by other
witnesses at the trial. But here the witness cannot in strictness be asked his opinion
respecting the very point which the jury is to determine.""

44. G.V. Raman v. Emperor, (1929) 57 Cal 44.

45. Taylor, 12th Edn., ss. 1414-15, pp. 898-99.
46. lbid., s. 1416, p. 899.
47. 1bid., s. 1417, p. 900.
48. lbid. s. 1419, pp. 902, 903
49. TAYLOR, 12th Edn., s. 1421, p. 904.
 Of the Examination of Witnesses
s e c e t i o n1 3 8 7

777

duty of counsel to bring out clearly and in

then
s in support
fact
of
his ciient s case to which theproper chronological order every
witness can depose. This task
difficultthan
tha, may at first is
Sight appear. The timid witness must be
v a n t

rele

ative repressed,
witness
the witness wh0
is too encouraged; the
strong
the witness what partisan
more
a must be
alkative
nsel
And yet couns must not suggest to kept in
he is to say. An honest
c
W hi
e ic
nk .s, hhow
es should be left to tell his tale in
his own way with as little
interruption
is
conducted, the statement becomes part of the record. Itis
amination-in-chief

a s per
law and
p e r la the true in
sense, for at best, it may be rebuttable. An
being rebutted o r controverted
vidence
becomes a matter of consideration, relevance andevidence
belier,
whichis judgment by the Court. Yet it is evidence and it is material on
e stage of ju
the
ereof the Court
can
come to a prime facie opinion as to complicity of some other
hasisho may be connected with the offence. On the basis of examination-in-chief, the
perso the magistrate can proceed against a person as long as the Court is satisfied that
or
Court
vidence appearing against such person is such that it prima facie necessitates
1 Such person to face trial. In fact, an examination-in-chief untested by cross
ination,undoubtedly in tself, is an evidence.
suever, the statements made in examination-in-chief, lose much of their credibility
weight unless they, are put into the crucible of cross-examination and emerge
and we
from the test.2
unscathed
witness can be cross-examined unless he has been first examined-in-chief. This
No
that cross-examination follows examination-in-chief but it cannot be so
cection provides
without examination-in-chief."3

Cross-examination.-The testimony of a witness is not legal evidence unless it is

qubiect to cross-examination;
and where no opportunity has been given to the appellant's
or where owing to the
counsel to test the veracity of the principal prosecution witness
witness the Court is constrained to terminate all
ofa sudden and
refractory attitude of the of such a witness is not
cross-examination of the witness, the evidence
prematurely the No evidence
cannot be the basis of a judicial pronouncement."
legal testimony andadmissible latter has had an opportunity
affecting a party is against that party unless the exercise of this right
cross-examination." "The
of testing its truthfulness by efficacious tests which the law
regarded as one of the most
cross-examination is justly situation of the witness with
means of it, the
has devised for the discovery
of truth. By
his interest, his motives, his
to the parties and to the subject of litigation, correct and certain
respect his means of obtaining a
inclination and prejudices, his character, the m a n n e r in which he has used
which he bears testimony,
knowledge of the facts to and description, are all fully
of discernment, memory,
those means, his powers of the jury, who have an
ascertained, and submitted to the consideration the just value of his
investigated, demeanour, and of determining
his on a CCourt or jury,
OPportunity of observing subjected to this test, to impose
for a witness,
EStimony. It is not easy

50. PowELL, 10th Edn., p. 458. 92 (paras 89 and 90).

(2014) 3 SCC where the testimony of a
S1. v. State of Punjab, 1785: 1989 Cr LJ 2070,
52 e e p Singh AIR 1989 SC
not reliable. Ganesh Judav
e Gopal Sarannotv. Satyanarayna, to cross-examination was held to be must relate to
submit himself cross-examination
ness who did LJ 3748 (Gau), examination and facts brought in examination-
1995 Cr relevant
Iate of Assam, the defence to challenge the
and on failure of evidence.
a n t tacts to accept that part of
the court has discretion
53 Cniet, Kenchamma, AlIR 2007 Kar I 552; Food nspector v. James N. T., 1998 Cr LJ 3494
haradamamav. 12 Luck
54 King-Emperor, (1936) cross-examination.
AUmar v. witness who died before App R 266 (CA
of the evidence of a
Gokal (Abbas), (1997) 2 Cr held
the value (1946) Nag 126; R. v. abroad were to be unsafe
aganlal v. King-Emperor,witnesses who w e r e not
cross-examined

Dv)}, statements of
evidence.