“Cross-examination is not merely a technical rule of evidence; it is a rule of essential justice” : Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has passed a judgment on 1st March, 2023 issuing trial courts dealing with criminal matters have to appreciate evidence as a whole and cannot ignore the cross-examination. This was in the case of Kattemane Ganesha v. State of Karnataka (CRIMINAL APPEAL No.441 OF 2015 C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1055 OF 2015 ) and this is presided over by Justice B Veerappa and Justice Rajesh Rai K.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The appellant had challenged the session court’s order of convicting him in the murder case while acquitting his co-accused. The learned counsel for the appellant/ accused No.1 contended that evidence of prosecution witnesses includes examination-in-chief, cross-examination and re-examination. However, the learned Sessions Judge has not considered and discussed the cross-examination portion of prosecution witnesses and thereby, the entire judgment passed should be vitiated. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of State of Karnataka, by Circle Inspector of Police vs.Hosakeri Ningappa and another reported in ILR 2012 KAR 509.
JUDGEMENT:
The Court contended that “The provision of cross-examination is not merely a technical rule of evidence; it is a rule of essential justice. It serves to prevent surprise at the trial and miscarriage of justice, because it gives notice to the other side of the actual case that is going to b e made when the turn of the party, on whose behalf the cross-examination is being made, comes to give and lead evidence by producing witnesses.The party must be given a fair chance to cross-examine the witness,”. The right to cross-examination is a natural right and a part of natural justice, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A.K.Roy vs. Union of India reported in (1982)1 SCC 271. The court also held that “The provision of cross-examination is not merely a technical rule of evidence; it is a rule of essential justice. It serves to prevent surprise at the trial and miscarriage of justice, because it gives notice to the other side of the actual case that is going to be made when the turn of the party, on whose behalf the cross-examination is being made, comes to give and lead evidence by producing witnesses. The party must be given a fair chance to cross-examine the witness. Our view is fortified by the dictum in the case of AEG Carapiet vs. Derderian reported in AIR 1961 Cal 359. Thereby, natural justice which is required, is denied.”
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY PRATIKSHYA P. BEURA