Introduction
In any legal system, the process of examining witnesses is fundamental to the administration of justice. In the adversarial framework followed in India, this process is divided into three stages: chief examination, cross examination, and re-examination. Each plays a crucial role in the establishment of facts, the testing of credibility, and the preservation of procedural fairness.
Of these, examination-in-chief and cross-examination form the central elements of evaluating witness testimony. Their significance lies not merely in procedural compliance but in their essential contribution to discovering the truth. While chief examination allows a party to build its case through witness testimony, cross examination functions as a safeguard, challenging that narrative and ensuring that only reliable and credible evidence is considered.
This article provides a comprehensive analysis of these two stages—tracing their legal foundations under Indian law, their procedural contours, and their importance in practice.
I. Legal Framework: Statutory Basis in Indian Law
The Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, codifies the law of evidence and contains specific provisions governing the examination of witnesses. Chapter X (Sections 140–168) outlines the procedure for examining witnesses in court. The definitions relevant to the examination stages are found in Section 142, which reads as follows:
-
Examination-in-Chief: Also called chief examination, this is the initial questioning of a witness by the party who calls them. Its purpose is to present that party’s version of facts, and leading questions are not permitted to ensure the testimony remains unbiased.
-
Cross-Examination: Conducted by the opposing party after examination-in-chief, this stage aims to challenge the witness’s credibility and the accuracy of their testimony. Leading questions are allowed, and it often reveals contradictions or inconsistencies.
-
Re-Examination: This follows cross-examination and is conducted by the party who first called the witness, strictly to clarify points raised during cross-examination. No leading questions are permitted, and new matters cannot be introduced without court approval.
Further, Section 143 provides the order in which witnesses should be examined, stating that a witness shall be first examined-in-chief, then cross-examined, and if necessary, re-examined. Section 149–157 then deal with the scope and manner of cross examination, including the right to ask questions that test the veracity, identity, previous conduct, and credibility of the witness.
II. Chief Examination: Presenting the Factual Narrative
1. Purpose and Function
Chief examination, also referred to as direct examination in common law jurisdictions, is intended to allow a party to present its version of events through the testimony of its own witnesses. It helps to lay the factual foundation of a claim or defence. The object is not to argue, but to prove the facts alleged in the pleadings.
2. Nature of Questions
As per Section 146, leading questions—those which suggest the answer—are not permitted during chief examination, unless related to introductory matters or with the court’s permission. This rule is based on the idea that witnesses should testify based on their own perception and memory, rather than be directed or influenced by counsel.
For instance, a permissible question might be:
But an impermissible leading question would be:
The prohibition ensures that testimony is voluntary, uncoached, and trustworthy.
3. Evidentiary Value
Statements made during chief examination have substantive evidentiary value. However, such value is conditional. Courts often note that testimony in chief must withstand cross examination to be relied upon. If the testimony collapses under cross examination or the witness contradicts themselves, the probative value of the chief examination is significantly weakened.
III. Cross Examination: The Crucible of Truth
1. Purpose
Cross examination is widely regarded as the most powerful tool for testing the truth of a witness’s testimony. It is a confrontational process, intended to challenge, dissect, and scrutinize the witness’s statements and demeanor.
The Supreme Court in multiple cases has reaffirmed the right to cross examine as a fundamental right of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution. In Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994), the Court held that a fair trial includes the right to effectively cross examine prosecution witnesses.
2. Leading Questions Permitted
In stark contrast to chief examination, Section 146 allows leading questions in cross examination. This enables the counsel to corner the witness, compel admissions, and expose inconsistencies.
For example:
-
“Isn’t it true that you were not present at the scene?”
-
“You did not mention this fact in your earlier statement, did you?”
These types of questions are designed to test both the content and credibility of the testimony, as well as the reliability of the witness.
3. Scope and Boundaries
As per Section 149, the cross examiner may ask questions to:
-
Test the veracity of the witness.
-
Discover their position in life.
-
Shake their credit by injuring their character.
However, Section 153–155 place some boundaries. Questions must not be indecent, scandalous, or insulting unless they relate directly to relevant facts. The court holds the authority to disallow such questions at its discretion.
In State of Rajasthan v. Bhanwar Singh (2004), the Court emphasized that though cross examination can be rigorous, it must not descend into harassment or character assassination unless justified.
IV. Interplay Between the Two Stages
The relationship between chief and cross examination is both complementary and adversarial. While chief examination builds the evidentiary framework of a party’s case, cross examination acts as the stress test that evaluates the robustness of that framework.
A testimony may appear credible during chief examination, but if inconsistencies or contradictions emerge during cross examination, the reliability of the witness is compromised. Conversely, a strong witness who remains consistent and composed during cross examination may significantly strengthen the party’s position.
V. Re-examination: Clarifying the Record After Crossfire
While chief examination establishes a party’s narrative and cross examination challenges it, the process doesn’t always end there. There is often a need to clarify or correct certain aspects of a witness’s testimony—especially those that may have been distorted or misunderstood during cross examination. That is where re-examination comes in.
1. Statutory Basis and Definition
Under Section 142 of the BSA, 2023, re-examination is defined as: “The examination of a witness, subsequent to cross-examination, by the party who called him.”
The object of re-examination is to explain matters brought out in cross examination, not to introduce entirely new facts or re-open issues already addressed.
2. Purpose and Scope
The primary goal of re-examination is to:
-
Clarify ambiguities created during cross examination.
-
Restore the credibility of the witness if it has been called into question.
-
Explain inconsistencies or apparent contradictions in earlier answers.
It provides an opportunity to correct the impression left by a skilfully conducted cross examination, particularly if it has misled the court or confused the witness.
However, re-examination is not intended to fill gaps in the original testimony or to introduce new facts that were not addressed during cross-examination. This principle ensures that re-examination does not become a backdoor method to alter the case strategy.
3. Leading Questions and Judicial Control
Unlike cross examination, leading questions are not permitted in re-examination unless the court permits them under special circumstances (similar to chief examination).
Additionally, Section 143 of the BSA states that if a new matter is brought up during re-examination, the opposing party has the right to cross-examine the witness again on that specific issue. This ensures procedural fairness and balance between the parties.
4. Practical Example
- Imagine a witness says during chief examination: “I saw the accused at the scene around 9 PM.”
- During cross examination, counsel asks: “Isn’t it true that it was quite dark and visibility was poor?”
- The witness agrees, which casts doubt on their earlier claim.
- In re-examination, their lawyer might ask: “Was there any source of light near the place where you saw the accused?”
This clarifies the context and helps restore the witness’s credibility—without introducing an entirely new fact.
5. Judicial Approach
Courts have generally treated re-examination as a corrective and limited procedure. In Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab (2015), the Supreme Court reiterated that re-examination must be confined to the scope of issues raised during cross examination and cannot be used to build a new case.
VI. Procedural Implications and Judicial Trends
1. Adverse Inference from Non Cross Examination
Courts have consistently held that if a party fails to cross examine a witness, it may amount to acceptance of their testimony, unless otherwise explained. In Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mohamed Haji Latif (1968), the Supreme Court observed that a party withholding an opportunity for cross examination risks an adverse inference under Section 114, Illustration (g) of the Evidence Act, now Section 119 of BSA.
2. Hostile Witnesses
If a witness, during examination-in-chief, turns against the party that called them, that party may request the court to declare the witness hostile under Section 157 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. Once declared hostile, leading questions may be asked even in chief examination. However, the testimony of a hostile witness is not automatically disregarded; courts may rely on corroborated parts of the testimony that appear credible.
3. Digital and Video Conferencing
Recent judicial practice has expanded the scope of chief and cross examination through digital means. Courts have permitted video conferencing for the examination of witnesses in appropriate cases, especially post-pandemic. However, safeguards must be ensured to preserve the integrity of the process—such as verification of identity, uninterrupted transmission, and the presence of an oath administrator.
VII. Comparative Jurisprudence
India’s approach to witness examination is grounded in the common law tradition, sharing its foundational structure with jurisdictions like the United Kingdom and the United States, though procedural details may vary.
In the United States, the Federal Rules of Evidence regulate the examination of witnesses. Notably, the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the accused the right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him,” firmly establishing the right to cross-examination as a cornerstone of fair trial protections.
In the UK, the Criminal Procedure Rules and Civil Procedure Rules provide for sequential examination similar to Indian law. The role of oral evidence under oath, cross examination, and judicial control of proceedings is emphasized across all common law systems as essential to fair adjudication.
VIII. Challenges and Criticisms
Despite its centrality, the system of oral witness examination is not without challenges:
-
Witness tampering remains a serious concern, especially in high-profile criminal cases. Delays in trials often result in witnesses turning hostile.
-
Lack of preparation among lawyers during cross examination can lead to poor outcomes, especially when witnesses make false or evasive statements.
-
Language barriers and lack of legal awareness among rural witnesses may dilute the effectiveness of both chief and cross examination.
-
In civil trials, there is growing debate about whether too much reliance on oral evidence prolongs litigation and introduces subjectivity, especially when documentary evidence could suffice.kj
IX. Conclusion
Chief and cross examination are not just formal procedural steps; they lie at the heart of the adversarial system. The structure ensures that no testimony is accepted blindly and that every claim is tested in open court.
Chief examination helps build the narrative; cross examination breaks it down to test its strength. Together, they allow the court to hear, see, and assess the evidence in a controlled, adversarial setting—one of the most vital components of procedural justice.
In an age where judicial efficiency and digital integration are evolving rapidly, the core principles underlying these stages must be preserved and strengthened. To do so, courts, lawyers, and lawmakers must ensure that the process remains rigorous, fair, and resistant to abuse—because justice depends not only on what is said in court, but on how it is tested.
Also Read:
Rights of undertrial prisoners in India
How To Send A Legal Notice In India