Re-Examination Can’t Be Used To Give Chance To Witness To Undo Statement Made In Cross Examination & Fill...
📌 Case Context
In criminal and civil trials, witnesses are examined in three stages:
Examination-in-Chief (Direct Examination): Witness gives initial account of facts.
Cross-Examination: Opposing party questions the witness to test credibility and reliability.
Re-Examination: The party who called the witness can clarify or explain matters raised during cross-examination.
The issue before the courts: Can re-examination be used to completely undo or contradict statements made during cross-examination, or to introduce new material unrelated to clarifications?
⚖️ Legal Principle
Purpose of Re-Examination:
Re-examination is not a second chance to improve testimony.
Its only purpose is to clarify doubts or ambiguities raised during cross-examination.
Cannot be used to fill gaps or undo statements deliberately made in cross-examination.
Courts’ View:
Allowing re-examination to contradict cross-examination would defeat the adversarial process.
It would give a party unlimited opportunity to strengthen their case unfairly, undermining fairness.
📚 Supporting Case Laws
State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (1992 SC)
SC held that re-examination cannot be used to undo adverse statements made during cross-examination.
Purpose is limited clarification only.
Ram Singh v. State of UP (1985 SC)
Re-examination allowed only to remove ambiguity, not to introduce fresh material unrelated to cross-examination.
K.K. Verma v. Union of India (SC)
Observed that witnesses’ statements must remain consistent and truthful, and re-examination cannot become a means of improving testimony artificially.
CrPC Provisions (Section 145 & Evidence Act Guidance)
Section 145 (Evidence Act) allows re-examination for clarification.
Any attempt to contradict or fill gaps deliberately in re-examination is inadmissible.
⚖️ Key Takeaways
Re-Examination = Clarification Only
Clarify matters raised in cross-examination.
Cannot introduce new facts or contradict prior statements.
Protects Fair Trial:
Ensures adversarial process is respected.
Prevents manipulation of witness testimony.
Judicial Oversight:
Courts have the power to restrict questions in re-examination that go beyond clarification.
In short: Re-examination cannot be used as a second chance for witnesses to undo or improve statements made during cross-examination. Its purpose is strictly clarification, and using it otherwise violates the principle of fairness and the adversarial system.
RELATED Blog
0 comments