A witness is typically someone who testifies during a court investigation or trial. A witness is someone who is intended to be familiar with the case's facts and circumstances. The phrase "examination of witnesses" refers to interrogation, which typically entails the parties or their attorneys asking the witness a series of questions in an effort to elicit the issues at hand and bring them before the court.

A saying on witnesses:

• Those who speak truth do not come to court
• Those who come to court do not speak truth

Deaf and Dumb witness:

In the event that a witness is mute, he or she may nevertheless provide testimony intelligibly by writing, signing, or gesturing; however, the writing and signing must be done in public and documented. Such witnesses' testimony is regarded as oral evidence (Sec. 119 of I.E. Act).

Accused person:
The individual who is being accused is always qualified to testify in court. Although the accused may offer to testify, he cannot be forced to do so (Sec. 315 of CrPC).

Accomplice:
An accomplice is a person who intentionally assists another in committing a crime or cooperates with them. Section 133 of the I.E. Act states that an accomplice is a competent witness against an accused party and that a conviction based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice is not illegal; however, illustration (b) of Section 114 of the I.E. Act indicates that the court may demand confirmation of an accomplice's testimony. An advocate is an accomplice if he assists a criminal prior to the crime.

Approver:
An accomplice can only become an approver if they are guaranteed forgiveness. (CrPC, Sections 306 and 307). Although an approver is a qualified witness for the prosecution, his testimony might not be reliable and credible. The credibility of an approver is impacted by the pardon tender and the hope of freedom from prosecution. In order to avoid criminal culpability, the approver quits his friend and teams up with the enemy. Such a person should not be taken seriously unless his testimony is supported in substantial detail by a different source, according to experience and wisdom.

Trap witness:
The prosecution witness and the trap witness are not on equal footing since the trap witness plays a key role in inciting an offense in order to identify the perpetrator. To put it another way, a trap witness may be biased in favor of the prosecution yet acts in the public interest and lacks mens rea. Thus, he may be classified as a partisan or an interested witness at most.

Although such a recovery should be conducted prior to the testimony of witnesses, it is imperative to establish in court the identity of the funds and the fact that they were managed by the dishonest official. Before setting up the trap, the serial numbers of the currency notes that were tendered should be recorded, and witnesses should be able to recognize these notes. In addition, chemicals such as phenolphthalein or anthracene would be applied to the banknotes. Phenolphthalein powder turns pink (when detected with red hands).

Partisan or Interested Witness:
No legal rule states that a court cannot consider the testimony of witnesses who have a stake in the outcome. However, the rule of caution requires that the court thoroughly examine interested witnesses' testimony before relying on it.

Order of examination of witnesses:
The party summoning the witness conducts the initial main examination of him. After that, if the other side requests it, he will be cross-examined. If the one calling him wants, he can then be reexamined. (I.E. Act, Sec. 138). In all cases (regulated by the CPC), the party calling the witness for evidence must provide copies of the affidavit used for the witness's chief examination to the opposing party. A written statement of facts sworn before a person with the authority to administer an oath is called an affidavit.

Examination-in-chief:
Examining a witness in main is the process by which the party who called him examines him. (I.E. Act, Section 137). Any witness's primary goal during questioning is to extract information that is pertinent to the matter at hand and supports the party calling the witness. The party who summoned the witness obtains from him evidence that is pertinent to the matters at hand and in his favor during the examination-in-chief procedure.

It refers to a witness being questioned by the party who called him. When brought upon by the party to testify, the witness typically speaks in favor of the party examining him during chief examination. Similarly, in the chief examination, the party or his advocate asks direct questions rather than ambiguous ones because it is via these witnesses that he seeks to bolster his case.Leading questions are not permitted in this exam; only pertinent questions may be asked.

Ambit of Examination-in-Chief:

• It ought to be connected to the case's pertinent facts.
• Leading questions are generally not allowed during examination-in-chief. However, if a leading question is introductory in character, relates to uncontested facts, or pertains to facts that the court believes are sufficiently proven, it may be asked during examination-in-chief with the consent of the court (Sec. 142 of I.E. Act).

Cross Examination:

Cross-examination is the term used to describe the adverse party's questioning of a witness. (I.E. Act, Sec. 137).

Objects of Cross Examination:

1. to destroy the general value of the evidence given by the witness in chief examination
2. to bring to light facts suppressed by the witness, and
3. to establish evidence in his favour by means of his opponent's witness. (to obtain from such witness statements and admissions favourable to the party)
4. to destroy or weaken the case of the opponent by discrediting the witness.

Ambit of Cross-Examination:

Following questions may be asked during cross examination:

• Any question to test the veracity of the witness (i.e. to test the truthfulness of the testimony);
• Any question to know the status of the witness (i.e. to discover who the witness is and what is his position in life);
• Any question to check the credibility of the witness even by injuring his character or exposing him to criminal liability (i.e. to destroy or weaken the case of the opponent by discrediting the witness (Sec.146 of I.E. Act).
• Leading questions

Disallowing certain questions in cross-examination:
The following questions under cross-examination may be excluded by the court using its discretionary authority wisely: Indecent and scandalous questions may be excluded unless they are related to the facts at hand (Sec. 151 of I.E. Act). Questions aimed at causing offense or irritation are prohibited (Section 152 of the I.E. Act).

Re-examination:
Following cross-examination, the witness may be re-examined by the party who called him in order to address any inconsistencies that surfaced. Re-examination is intended to get answers or clarifications from witnesses regarding issues that came up during cross-examination and could be interpreted negatively for the party calling them. The advocate cross-examining me might reveal that, notwithstanding my interpretation of the statement, it was made in a different way. Witness: unfamiliar and inexperienced (perhaps anxious)

Ambit of Re-examination:

1. Re-examination may only be used to clarify issues raised in the cross-examination; however, it is not permitted to address gaps in the evidence presented during the cross-examination.
2. Generally speaking, new information cannot be included during a re-examination. However, during re-examination, additional facts may also be presented with the court's approval. The adverse party may cross-examine the witnesses exclusively in relation to the new facts that are brought up during re-examination.
3. During re-examination, a leading question may not be posed without the court's approval.

Hostile Witness:

• The Indian Evidence Act makes no use of the word "hostile witness." A witness is referred to as a hostile witness when the court allows the party who called him to cross-examine him.
• Under section 154 of the I.E. Act, the court may grant authorization if it determines from the facts, the witness's manner, temper, attitude, tenor, and propensity of answering the questions, as well as by reviewing the witness's prior conflicting statements, that doing so will best serve justice and extract the truth.

Written By: Akanksha