Cross-examination

The Advocate representing the respondent did not refuse to cross-examination — He made a statement before the Court that he would like to file a review petition against the order disallowing the question in cross-examination — It was not refused to cross-examination, but the assertion of right calling in question the legality of the order passed by the Court. The Counsel of course could continue the cross-examination on the statement and challenge disallowance of the question later on through a revision petition — This order does not operate as a bar to call in question the order of trial Court. Abdul Aziz v. Gulzar Ahmed Abbasi 2005 SCR 370 (B)
Cross Examination is a legal, legitimate and equitable right under law and this right cannot be denied to any party to the litigation in an arbitrary and un-guided manner. Muhammad Javed & another v. The State & another 2005 SCR 288 (A)
In cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses certain suggestions were put — All these were specifically denied — Mere suggestions put to a witness cannot take the place of substantial evidence unless the material put to a witness in such suggestions is proved by direct or indirect evidence. Liaqat Ali & 2 others v. Raja Shahid Nawaz & 2 others 2006 SCR 365 (E)
Suggestions made by the defence not only accepts the presence of eye-witnesses on place of occurrence at the time of occurrence but eliminated the possibility that they were not present at the time of occurrence. M. Khurshid Khan v. M. Basharat 2007 SCR 1 (C) PLJ 1985 Cr.C.13 and 1992 SCMR 305 relied.
Witnesses related to the deceased — Neither rescued nor tried to apprehend the accused — The accused armed with 12-bore single barrel gun — After fire it was a mere stick — Every person has no courage to stand before gun — It varies from man to man — It cannot be said that every person has courage to stand before a person who had a gun in his hands and already murdered a person — Only an extraordinary bold and brave person can intervene and stand at the risk of his own life — Held: The Shariat Court wrongly disbelieved the occurrence on this ground. Muhammad Khurshid Khan v. Muhammad Basharat & another 2007 SCR 1 (D)
Where a potion of statement of a particular witness is not challenged during cross-examination it shall be deemed to have been admitted by the other party. Khan M. Badar & 6 Others v. Mst. Roshni & 43 Others 2008 SCR 46 (B)
If a witness is not cross-examined at a particular point that part of statement of witness is deemed to be admitted as correct. Azad Govt. & 2 others v. Abdur Razzaq & others 2008 SCR 505 (B)
A party has to succeed in his case on the strength of its own case and weaknesses of the case of other party shall not be made basis for giving the benefit to other party. Azad Govt. & 2 others v. Abdur Razzaq & 6 others 2008 SCR 505 (C)
Trend of cross examining — whether considered confession by accused — held — mere putting suggestions — no substitute for proof — or discharge prosecution’s duties — Contention — that according to the trend of cross-examination, the commission of offence is fully established. Held: argument appears to be misconceived. As in this case, nothing as material from the prosecution evidence has been pointed out, which can be considered to be as confessional piece of evidence, on the part of the accused. Mere putting suggestions in the cross-examination cannot be substituted for proof or discharge the prosecution from its duties of proving the case beyond shadow of doubt. Tasawar Hussain versus The State & 9 others 2016 SCR 373 (B)
—Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984 Articles 132 &133— right to cross examine the Co-defendant/Co-accused—Contention: only plaintiff has right to cross-examine the defendant and co-defendants have no right to cross-examine defendant—Held: It is undisputed that no special provision is made in the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984 for cross examination of co-defendant/co-accused’s witnesses—the only relevant provision of law are Article 132 and 133, which refers to examination-in-chief and cross-examination of witness by adverse parties. Article 132(2) postulates that examination of a witness by the adverse party is cross-examination. Article 133(1), refers to cross-examination if the adverse party so desires after the witness is first examined in chief. These two provisions make it clear that a party has a right of cross examination if feels adversely effected. Barkat Ali Khan versus Additional District Judge & 4 others 2021 SCR 564 (A & C)
—Non-provision of opportunity—as a general rule, evidence is not legally admissible against party who at the time it was given, had no opportunity to cross-examine the witness who recorded such evidence. It is now well settled principle of law that no evidence should be read against one who was not given opportunity of testing it by cross-examination. Barkat Ali Khan versus Additional District Judge & 4 others 2021 SCR 564 (D)
—Non-provision of opportunity of cross-examination to codefendant—effect of—if evidence of one co-defendant incriminates other co-defendants—other co-defendant has right to cross-examine witness of former co-defendant—held: it would be unjust, unfair and unsafe not to allow a co-defendant to cross-examine a witness called by other co-defendant whose case was adverse to him, produce evidence which incriminates other defendants, thus, later have a right to cross-examine those witnesses—-if there is no conflict of interest, then such an opportunity needs not be given—if there is conflict of interest and opportunity to cross-examine not given to party effected by it the Court cannot rely upon such evidence. Barkat Ali Khan versus Additional District Judge & 4 others 2021 SCR 564 (E) AIR 1978 Punjab & Haryana 319. rel.
—Right to cross-examine—object of—the person against whom the evidence is given should have opportunity to cross examine the said witness, so that ultimately truth may be emerged on the basis of which the Court can decide the matter. Barkat Ali Khan versus Additional District Judge & 4 others 2021 SCR 564 (F)AIR 1978 Punjab & Haryana 319. rel.