Cross Examination - Law Dictionary Search Results
Home Dictionary Name: cross examination Page: 3Adverse party
Adverse party, the term 'adverse party' connotes that party which has a right and opportunity to cross-examine in the first proceeding. This proviso, therefore, obviously protects the rights of the adverse party in the first proceeding and not the party who produced the witness. The party against whom the witness is produced in the previous proceeding is the adverse party and not the person who produced the witness and had the advantage of having examined the witness, V.M. Mathew v. V.S. Sharma, (1995) 6 SCC 122 (125). [Evidence Act, 1872, s. 33, second proviso]...
Hostile Witness
Hostile Witness, a witness who so conducts himself under examination-in-chief that the party who has called him, or his representative, is allowed to cross-examine him by the Criminal Procedure Act, 1865 (28 & 29 Vict. c. 18), which applies to civil actions as well as to criminal trials....
Oral evidence
Oral evidence, include not only the one adduced by examining the witnesses, on behalf of such party, but also the cross-examination of witness by the opposite party, in relation to it, Nandan Mohanama v. Markonda Narasimha Rao, AIR 2006 AP 8....
Redirect
Applied to the examination of a witness by the party calling him after the cross examination...
Dying declaration
Dying declaration, The dying declaration is a state-ment by a person as to the cause of his death or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death and it becomes relevant under s. 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act in a case in which the cause of that person's death comes into question. It is true that a dying declaration is not a deposition in court and it is neither made on oath nor in the presence of the accused. It is, therefore, not tested by cross-examination on behalf of the accused. But a dying declaration is admitted in evidence by way of an exception to the general rule against the admissibility of hearsay evidence, on the principle of necessity, Tapinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (1970) 2 SCC 113: AIR 1970 SC 1566: (1971) 1 SCR 599.(ii) a dying declaration stands on the same footing as any other evidence and it is to be judged in the surrounding circumstances and with reference to the principles governing the weighting of evidence. The court mus...
Subp'na
Subp'na [from sub, Lat., under, and p'na, penalty], a writ commanding attendance in court under a penalty. It bears a close analogy to the citation, or vocatio in jus of the Civil and Canon Laws. There are several kinds of subp'na.At Common Law there are two to compel the attendance of witnesses:-(1) Subp'na ad testificandum, the common subp'na, which is personally served upon a witness, in order to compel him to attend the trial or inquiry, to give evidence.(2) Subp'na duces tecum; this is personally served upona person, who has in his possession any written instrument, etc., the production of which in evidence is desired. Such a person need not be sworn, and in that case he cannot be cross-examined. Se DUCES TECUM.These subp'nas are also used in criminal proceedings; four witnesses can be included in one subp'na, whether in civil or criminal cases.For rules as to service, etc., of subp'na see (English) R.S.C. 1883, Ord. XXXVII., rr. 26-34, and for the different forms of subp'na, see ...
Show-cause
Show-cause, means adequate opportunity of leading evidence in support of the contention of the person concerned and controverting of contentions raised against him, shall be given, and where necessary, opportunity of cross-examining witnesses of the other side and of addressing arguments shall also be afforded, Shyam Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1954 All 235....
Relevancy and admissibility
Relevancy and admissibility, the expressions 'relevancy and admissibility' are used as synonyms but their legal implications are distinct and different for more often than not facts which are relevant may not be admissible, for example, communication made by spouses during marriage or between an Advocate and his client though relevant are not admissible; so also facts which are admissible may not be relevant, for example, questions permitted to be put in cross-examination to test the veracity or impeach the credit of witnesses, though not relevant are admissible. The probative value of the evidence is the weight to be given to it which has to be judged having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case, Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar, (1998) 4 SCC 517: AIR 1998 SC 1850 (1852). [Evidence Act, (10 of 1872), s. 3]...
Reasonable opportunity
Reasonable opportunity, the broad test of 'reason-able opportunity' is, whether in the given case, the show cause notice issued to the delinquent servant contained or was accompanied by so much information as was necessary to enable him to clear himself of the guilt, if possible, even at that stage, or, in the alternative, to show that the penalty proposed was much too, harsh and disproportion-ate to the nature of the charge established against him, Uttar Pradesh Government v. Sabir Hussain, AIR 1975 SC 2045 (2048): (1975) 4 SCC 703: (1975) Supp SCR 354. [Government of India Act, 1935, s. 240(3)]The reasonable opportunity envisaged by Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, 1950, includes: (a) an opportunity to deny his guilt and establish his innocence, which he can only do if he is told what the charges leveled against him are and the allegations on which such charges are based; (b) an opportunity to defend himself by cross-examining the witnesses produced against him and by exa...
hearsay rule
hearsay rule : a rule barring the admission of hearsay as evidence NOTE: The hearsay rule is stated in Rule 802 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Hearsay is inadmissible as evidence because of the unavailability of cross-examination to test the accuracy of the statement. There are numerous exceptions to the rule, however, mainly for statements made under circumstances that assure reliability. Statements made spontaneously, for example, or as part of a business or medical record are inherently trustworthy and thus excepted from the rule. A statement need not be made orally for purposes of the hearsay rule. Written statements, gestures, and even motion pictures are included. ...
- << Prev.
- Next >>