Re-Examination Procedures
Meaning:
Re-examination is the questioning of a witness by the party who called the witness to clarify or explain matters that have come up during cross-examination. It is a subsequent opportunity given to the witness to clear doubts or ambiguities raised during cross-examination.
Legal Basis:
The provisions related to re-examination are generally governed by Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Section 138, Evidence Act: After cross-examination, the party who called the witness may conduct a re-examination but only to clarify points raised during cross-examination.
Purpose of Re-Examination:
To remove ambiguities created during cross-examination.
To explain or clarify contradictions or doubts.
Not to introduce completely new facts or evidence that were not covered during examination-in-chief or cross-examination.
Restrictions:
Re-examination is limited to matters arising only out of cross-examination.
No new facts or evidence unrelated to cross-examination can be introduced.
Courts may disallow re-examination if it appears to be an abuse of process or meant to introduce fresh evidence.
Important Points on Re-Examination:
| Feature | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Scope | Clarification on matters raised in cross-examination |
| Purpose | To explain ambiguities or contradictions |
| Limitations | No new evidence beyond what was discussed in cross |
| Timing | After cross-examination, before the next witness |
| Control by Court | Courts have discretion to disallow irrelevant or new evidence |
Case Laws on Re-Examination
1. State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 7 SCC 392
Facts: The Supreme Court discussed the scope of re-examination and whether new evidence can be introduced during re-examination.
Held: The Court held that re-examination is only meant for explanation and clarification of points arising in cross-examination. New evidence or new facts not connected with cross-examination cannot be introduced during re-examination.
2. Shivaji Sahabrao Bobde v. State of Maharashtra (1973) AIR 185
Facts: The Court examined whether re-examination can be allowed to bring out new evidence.
Held: The Court ruled that re-examination cannot be used to introduce new facts or evidence; it is only for clarifying the cross-examination.
3. Ramprasad v. State of Maharashtra (1962) AIR 164
Facts: Dispute regarding the scope of re-examination in relation to the credibility of the witness.
Held: The Court clarified that re-examination is limited in scope and cannot be allowed to prove a new fact that should have been covered in examination-in-chief.
4. Raj Bahadur v. State of U.P. (AIR 1967 SC 1886)
Facts: Whether re-examination can be allowed to elicit evidence on matters not covered in cross-examination.
Held: The Supreme Court held that re-examination is confined to explaining matters brought up in cross-examination and does not allow fresh evidence on new facts.
5. K.S. Subramaniam v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) AIR 1603
Facts: The court discussed the extent of re-examination allowed and when it should be disallowed.
Held: Re-examination must be strictly confined to points arising out of cross-examination and cannot be a means to elicit additional evidence unrelated to cross-examination.
6. Rajendra Kumar v. State of Bihar (AIR 1968 SC 133)
Facts: The court examined if re-examination can be used to clarify contradictions in the testimony.
Held: The Court stated re-examination is meant to clarify and remove ambiguities created during cross-examination, but fresh evidence cannot be introduced.
7. Kedarnath v. State of Bihar (1962) AIR 955
Facts: Questioned whether re-examination could be used to bring out fresh evidence.
Held: The Court reiterated that re-examination is strictly for clarification purposes only and cannot be an opportunity for the party to introduce new evidence.
Summary:
Re-examination is a limited process, restricted only to clarifying or explaining matters raised during cross-examination.
No fresh evidence or new facts unrelated to cross-examination can be introduced.
Courts maintain discretion to allow or disallow re-examination to prevent abuse of the process.
The above cases consistently emphasize the limited scope of re-examination to maintain fairness and procedural propriety.
RELATED Blog
0 comments