In a judicial proceeding or a trial, the examination of witness is a crucial part to discover the truth and to validate the veracity of the witness. In Indian Evidence Law, cross-examination is termed as questioning of a witness called by the opponent (party). The motive behind cross-examination is not just to ask questions to an opponent, but also to fortify and deduce the case. The main purpose of cross-examination is to verify whether, the witness presented is valid or not.

It is one of the principles which are integral for the ascertainment of the truth, and it is certainly one of the most effective method. Procedure and principle of examination and cross-examination of the witnesses are discussed under the Sections 135-166 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Review of literature
Books

1. Rattan Lal and Dhiraj Lal, "Indian Evidence Act" Lexis Nexis Butterworths, Wadhwa, Nagpur 21st Edn. In this book, all the provisions of the evidence act along with historical development, reliability, admissibility, and the evidentiary value of the witnesses in a detailed manner. The provisions relating to hostile witnesses and impeaching the credit of witnesses has been discussed in the detailed manner.
    
2. Sir John Woodroffe & Sir Amil Ali, "Law of Evidence" 16th edn, Vol 4, Law Book Co. Pvt. Ltd, Allahabad. The author of this volume discussed about the various aspects of witnesses their examination of witness. This book mainly emphasized with competency and compellability of witnesses.
    
3. C.D. Field, "Law relating to Witnesses" 3rd Edn ,Revised by Gopal S. Chaturvedi, Delhi law house. In this book, the author discussed about the child witnesses, dumb witnesses and their testimony. This book also emphasized on the examination of hostile witness appearing in the trial.
    
4. Turvey, Brent E. and Crowder, Stan: Ethical Justice: Applied Issues for Criminal Justice Students and Professionals (Academic Press-An Imprint of Elsevier, Oxford, 2013): In this eminent Book the authors pointed out the application of chemistry and physics in the procedure of crime investigation. For instance, a chunk of paint of unknown vehicle found on the damaged bicycle of victim in an accident can lead to the fair conclusion of the case. It emphasis on successful Criminal Justice System laying the fundamentals for the same and elucidate the role of scientific evidence.
    
5. Ramanatha Aiyar, Cross Examination- Principles & Precedents (LexisNexis 4th Edition) (2001): This provides an insight of legal and ethical issues emerged during the proceedings before the courts relating to crime investigation. It also, sometimes, raise question whether scientific knowledge is reliable in a particular matter? Answer depends on facts and circumstances of a particular case, where in some cases such knowledge may be appreciated while in others the same may be avoided.
    
6. Sharma, Dr. B.R., Forensic Science in Criminal Investigation & Trials (Fifth Edition, Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 2015): Dr. B.R. Sharma's work is a celebrated treatise covering almost entire range of forensic science including D.N.A. Profiling, Finger Prints, trace elements and many more topics. Major thrust in this book is on computer crimes, video- conferencing, Lie Detector, Narco-Analysis, Brain Printing tests. Book also discusses the automation in all aspects of forensic science, especially its tools and techniques.
    
7. Durston, Gregory; Evidence-Text & Material (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2nd Edi, 2011): This Book of Gregory Durston gives deep insight about relevancy, cogency and admissibility of evidence before the court. What matters can and cannot be established by adducing or without adducing the evidence, this book reveals and went on to explore the mindset of investigators and judges while dealing with the evidence of scientific nature.

Scope of the Present Study
The scope of this research study is the art of examination is where witness will be questioned to get the statement or truth which will be favourable to decide the case. An examination of the witness is done to find the truth or to check the veracity of the facts said by the witness. In simple words examination of witness is the process where relevant questions are asked related to the fact in issue to a witness.

In a judicial proceeding or a trial, the examination of witness is a crucial part to discover the truth and to validate the veracity of the witness. In Indian Evidence Law, cross-examination is termed as questioning of a witness called by the opponent (party). The motive behind cross-examination is not just to ask questions to an opponent, but also to fortify and deduce the case.

The main purpose of cross-examination is to verify whether, the witness presented is valid or not. It is one of the principles which are integral for the ascertainment of the truth, and it is certainly one of the most effective method. In this paperwork, we will see, how these witnesses are examined, what are the kinds of examination are used in witnesses, which are specified under section 135 to 165 of the Indian evidence act,1872.

Witness examination
Witnesses will be questioned related to the fact in issue so; they are required to answer the relevant questions presented to them. Their answers to the questions put to him/her will be recorded, which are called testimonies of witnesses. So, this questioning of the witness and the recording of their answers will be called as witness examination.

Kinds of witness examination and their order (Section 137 &138 of Indian evidence act) There are Three kinds of witness examination namely, (Section 137 of Indian Evidence Act)

1. Examination In Chief
2. Cross-Examination
3. Re-Examination
    

What Is Cross-Examination?
Cross-Examinations, according to Merriam-Webster is the act of examining a witness who has already testified in order to check or discredit the witness's testimony, knowledge or credibility.[1]

Hawkins J. once said:
".... It is building a brick wall around a man. You ask your question, and the answer enables you to plant one brick here. Then another question-another brick, in quite a different place. If you ask your questions politely, highly likely he will place half a dozen bricks in position himself. They are scattered all over the place, but you have your plan. By degrees, the ring is complete. The wall rises. And he finds he cannot get out".[2]

Put in simple words, cross examinations are a method to read between lines of the facts of a case by filling logical gaps, verifying the legitimacy of the information and building a case thereof, making it a very powerful tool, having the ability to decide the fate of a case. The process of conducting a cross examination is one of the highest accolades that can be conferred to an advocate and requires years worth of observation, practice and perseverance to master the art of cross examinations as it traverses mere asking of questions, but also includes the process of asking the right questions and through a prescribed procedure, governed by certain principles and ethics3.

Principles Governing Cross-Examination
Cross-Examination is a direct corollary of the Principles of Natural Justice, allowing a person to have a trial free of any prejudice in a fair manner. The Right to Cross-Examine does not mean a party has the right to badger or attack the opposing counsel, rather it provides them the right to check the facts of a case and ensure the legitimacy of the witnesses statement by verifying his memory, motives and his/her ability to ascertain and analyse facts to ensure they are consistent with the allegations made.[3]

Hence, in a substance of such importance, it is important that certain principles be followed to ensure that certain ethics are adhered to in the process of analysing information, to which there are broadly two principles that are to be followed viz. the Good Faith Basis Rule and the Prevention of Creating False Impressions.

1. Good Faith Basis Rule
   Good Faith is essential in the function of court which applies to all members present in session i.e. the advocates, judge and the witness. In the matter of cross-examination, it is essential that the statements provided to the court in the form of an affidavit or answers to questions are true and verifiable on part of the witness[4] while the counsel follow certain principles as well.
   
   While conducting a cross examination, a lawyer may only ask questions that are ethically apt and are based on good faith which he may have factual and legal basis to believe in. While conducting a cross examination, the lawyer is required to ask a factual question,[5] suggesting that the evidence is alluding in the trial conducted i.e., confirming or refuting certain evidence put before the court, allowing the party to verify the legitimacy and relevance of the evidence.
   
   This must be done only when the lawyer requires clarification where he believes there to be certain discrepancies, for example, a lawyer must ask a driver if he was intoxicated while driving only if he has strong reason to believe that he was under the influence of a certain substance, in the form of a leading question.
   
   A leading question refers to a question which invokes a particular answer from the witness, to which the counsel has pre-anticipated a response. However, in the process of cross examination, it is essential that the counsel does not opt for aggressive, demeaning approaches in a manner that a witnesses reputation is put at stake by referring to unnecessary and irrelevant facts. It was ruled in the case of Ayeasha Bi v. Peerkhan Sahib and Ors.[6], that using defamatory statements during a cross examination would not hold the counsel liable for defamation but would not be taken into consideration in court.
   
   However, what may amount to valid cross-examination and what would not vary on the factual basis of the case, where the form of questioning and the type of questioning may be permitted or prohibited by the presiding judge of the case. The best example of such a case can be seen in the United States, where in the case of State v. William[7], it was ruled that merely having an official statement of arrest from a federal authority is not sufficient to ask questions on the matter while in the case of Hazel v. United States[8], a more liberal view was approached where the court allowed questions with the only requirement being that such questions must not be groundless. Further, the need for the court to distinguish grave suspicion from suspicion as enshrined in the case of Yogesh v. State of Maharashtra also provides that mere evidence does not suffice to create a case, but cross examination plays an important role in doing so.
    
2. Prevention of Creating False Impressions
   An ethical dilemma and an underlying problem in the process of cross-examination would be the trend of intentionally creating false impressions against the original narrative by omitting certain evidence to deceive the court through half-truths, changing the course of the case.[9]
   
   However, it is important to note that cross-examination also confers the right to verify such facts through the same process. Francis Wellman in his work 'The Art of Cross Examination' states that the purpose of a cross-examination is not to determine make the false to look true or the true to look false, rather it is the process to 'catch the truth'.[10] However, certain members of the legal fraternity may disagree with this school of thought that there is no unethical practice in utilizing truthful yet misleading evidence if it, in the practical sense, increases the chance of acquittal.[11]
   
   They argue that it is the duty of a lawyer to protect his/her client to the best of their ability and do them justice in belief that they have confided in the lawyer to protect them and in lieu of this justice, utilizing truthful and misleading information would only be a part of their duty and not ethically wrong in any sense.
   
   Hence, in light of upholding the principles of natural justice and providing a fair trial, it is necessary to attempt to omit all unwarranted and irrelevant information to ensure that no false narratives are created to the best of the courts ability.

Procedure To Conduct A Cross Examination
Cross examination being an integral part of court proceedings has a prescribed procedure mentioned in both the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC), 1973 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Hereby the Evidence Act) as well. The provisions in the Cr.PC under Section 231(2), 243(2), 246(6) and Section 162(1) mention the term Cross Examination.[12] While Section 231(2), 243(2), 246(6) allow the courts of session to conduct cross examinations, Section 162(1) links criminal procedure to the Indian Evidence Act to allow statements as evidence to verify cross-examinations.

The Cr.PC allows the examination of witnesses in criminal cases in all trials by providing the powers to the police to make a report and also provides the magistrates to issue summons to any person to act as witnesses for the prosecution to straighten their facts through a process called 'examination in chief' after charges have been framed. The Cr.PC also provides that the defendants can ask cross-questions the witnesses, called 'cross-questioning'. The provisions of the court also provide for re-examinations which mean that the prosecution can ask its queries from the witness after the defence if there happen to be any.

However, the procedure by which examination of evidence and witnesses is better explained in the Evidence Act under Chapter X (Section 135-166). With reference to Cross-Examinations, Section 137[13] of the Evidence Act defines the terms viz. Examination-in-chief, Cross-Examination and Re-Examination while Section 138[14] of the Act mentions the process by which Cross-Examination of a witness must be conducted by stating the order of examination i.e. examination-in-chief, cross examination and then re-examination.

Further, Section 138 also provides that the examination of a witness must coincide with relevant facts and that the questions made during a cross examination must be confined to the testimony of the witness during the examination-in-chief.[15]

Section 139[16] of the Act states that a person summoned before the court to solely produce documents does not make him a witness unless he is asked to be a witness in the matter.

Section 146 of the Evidence Act provides a list of what questions are lawful during a cross examination. It states that with the exceptions to certain crimes under Section 376 where consent is in question, the Cross-Examiner may ask questions which tend to test the veracity of an individual, to discover his position in the case or his credibility to the case.

The Evidence Act also compels victims to answer questions under certain circumstances under Section 132 read with Section 148 of the Act to determine which question holds relevance to a case. Lastly, Section 154 of the Evidence Act states that 'The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.'[17]

Hence, A through procedure for court proceedings with respect to cross-examinations have been laid down under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act, however, certain special provisions and methods for the examination of minors and other sections of society have special provisions made through case laws and judicial decisions, which have laid guidelines and provisions for the purpose.

Judicial Precedents To Cross-Examination
The Indian Evidence Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure lay down a comprehensive procedure with respect to conducing examinations of witnesses, however to factor situations such as human rights and child rights to the process, courts have repeatedly ruled on numerous occasions to provide further guidelines, explaining specific procedures or issues faced in the current situation.

The question of who can conduct a cross examination was explained in the case of B.S. Balaji v. T. Govindaraju[18], where it was held that a Managing director had the right to cross-examine another director who had embezzled certain amount of money from the firm as the Managing Director was an adverse party due to the acts of the embezzling partner.

In the case of Govind Narain vs Smt. Chhoti Devi[19] it was ruled that an expert witness called under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act can be recalled after he gives his observations by the cross-examiner in order to verify the credibility of the expert. In this case, the court was convinced about the credibility of a handwriting expert after cross examination.

In the case of S. Amruta v. C. Manivanna Bhupathy[20] the court compared the validity of the cross examination of children through the lens of Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act through cases such as Pancchi and Ors. V. State of UP[21] and Arbind Singh v. State of Bihar[22] and ruled that there would be no disqualification for a child witness and before the outcome of such cross-examination is accepted, the evidence must be corroborated through a preliminary enquiry and the court would not be allowed to permit a child to take oath or make affirmations as the child is incompetent to understand the consequences of the same.

Limitation of the study
The following ideas are excluded from the scope of this study and are regarded as its limitations:

The witnesses should be treated with respect from the time of the investigation until the time of the trial's conclusion, and any factors that contribute to their suffering should be eliminated. The witness's minds must be given the necessary assurance that they will be shielded from the accuser's retaliation in a timely manner. The cases should be listed such that summoned witnesses can be questioned the same day they are called, and adjournments should be carefully avoided.

Conclusion
Through the course of the study, we have established that cross-examination is not mere asking of questions, rather is an art bound by procedure, spanning the Indian Evidence Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure. The procedure makes the examination of the Witness-in-Chief simpler, however the real challenge for the trial judge lies in the process of Cross-Examination, where the Judge is required to adhere to the provisions of Section 165, which provides him/her tremendous powers to allow and deny cross-examinations in case he/she is unsatisfied with the legitimacy and credibility of the evidence.

Lastly, it is imperative to understand that the process of cross-examination is not restricted to one law or code, rather the scope of cross examination spans over the Criminal Procedure Code, Civil Procedure Code and the Indian Evidence Act, which provides comprehensively as to what can be asked, when must it be asked and how it must be asked and answered, providing enough scope for judicial interpretation as well.

Bibliography:

• Internet link:
• Definition of Cross Examination, MERRIAM-WEBSTER: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crossexamination
• Books:
• Sarkar, Commentary On The Law Of Evidence (Dwivedi & Company 7th Edition) (2020), Pp. 2918.
• Francis L. Wellmann, The Art Of Cross-Examination: With The Cross-Examinations Of Important Witnesses In Some Celebrated Cases (Macmillan) (1923), Pp. 7-8.
• Rattan Lal and Dhiraj Lal, "Indian Evidence Act" Lexis Nexis Butterworths, Wadhwa, Nagpur 21st Edn.
• Sir John Woodroffe & Sir Amil Ali, "Law of Evidence" 16th edn, Vol 4, Law Book Co. Pvt. Ltd, Allahabad.
• C.D. Field, "Law relating to Witnesses" 3rd Edn, Revised by Gopal S. Chaturvedi, Delhi law house.
• Turvey, Brent E. and Crowder, Stan: Ethical Justice: Applied Issues for Criminal Justice Students and Professionals (Academic Press-An Imprint of Elsevier, Oxford, 2013)
• Ramanatha Aiyar, Cross Examination- Principles & Precedents (LexisNexis 4th Edition) (2001)
• Sharma, Dr. B.R., Forensic Science in Criminal Investigation & Trials (Fifth Edition, Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 2015)
• Durston, Gregory; Evidence-Text & Material (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2nd Edi, 2011).
• Cases:
• State v. Williams, (1973) 297 Minn. 76, 210 N.W. 2D 21.
• Hazel v. United States, (1974) 319 A.2d 136.
• Journals:
• Andrew M. Perlman, Behavioral Theory of Legal Ethics, A, 90 IND. LJ 1639 (2015).
• J. Alexander Tanford, What We Don't Teach in Trial Advocacy: A Proposed Course in Trial Law, 41 JOURNAL OF LEGAL EDUCATION 251-261 (1991).
• Acts:
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, No. 2 of 1974, Sec.162(1), 231(2), 243(2), 246(6).
• The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, No.1 of 1847, Sec.137.

End Notes:

1. Definition of Cross Examination, MERRIAM-WEBSTER, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crossexamination
2. SARKAR, COMMENTARY ON THE LAW OF EVIDENCE (Dwivedi & Company 7th edition) (2020), pp. 2918.
3. Francis L. Wellmann, The Art Of Cross-Examination: With The Cross-Examinations Of Important Witnesses In Some Celebrated Cases (Macmillan) (1923), Pp. 7-8.
4. MANU/MH/0004/1966.
5. MANU/WB/0312/1929.
6. MANU/TN/0364/1953.
7. State v. Williams, (1973) 297 Minn. 76, 210 N.W. 2D 21.
8. Hazel v. United States, (1974) 319 A.2d 136.
9. Andrew M. Perlman, Behavioral Theory of Legal Ethics, A, 90 IND. LJ 1639 (2015).
10. Ibid
11. J. Alexander Tanford, What We Don't Teach in Trial Advocacy: A Proposed Course in Trial Law, 41 JOURNAL OF LEGAL EDUCATION 251-261 (1991).
12. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, No. 2 of 1974, Sec.162(1), 231(2), 243(2), 246(6).
13. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, No.1 of 1847, Sec.137.
14. Ibid at Sec.138.
15. Ibid
16. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, No.1 of 1847, Sec.139
17. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, No.1 of 1847, Sec.154.
18. MANU/KA/0554/1995.
19. MANU/RH/0040/1966.
20. MANU/TN/7206/2007.
21. MANU/UP/0933/1998.
22. MANU/SC/0234/1994.