The Madras High Court recently lamented the drastic fall in standards of cross examination before trial courts [A Muthupandi v State]. .Justice N Anand Venkatesh said he was forced to record his displeasure at the standard of cross examination after he realised that most questions put to witnesses were either irrelevant or illogical."At this juncture, this Court has to necessarily record its displeasure in the manner, in which, the witnesses are cross examined. On a daily basis, this Court is able to find that the standard of cross examination of witnesses has gone down drastically. It is quite unfortunate that the trial court advocates are not developing their skills of cross examination. Most of the questions, which are put to the witnesses, are irrelevant and illogical," the High Court said.He further said that while cross examination was considered the crown of a lawyer's advocacy skills, it was unfortunate that trial court lawyers were not making an effort to develop such a skill these days."The art of cross examination was considered as a crown in advocacy skills. If this art is lost, the charm in conducting a trial before a court will also be lost," the judge stated. The Court, therefore, urged the senior members of the Bar to help juniors learn and practice the art of cross examination.Justice Venkatesh made the observations while hearing an appeal filed by a man challenging his conviction and sentence under Sections 376 and 377 of the Indian Penal Code, and the State's appeal seeking enhancement of his sentence..The man had been convicted and sentenced to three years imprisonment for having raped a five-year-old girl. While the Court enhanced the petitioner's sentence to seven years, it noted that witnesses had been subjected to several unnecessary questions during their cross examination before the trial court. "For instance, when P.W.6 was cross examined in this case, a question was put to her and was asked to explain as to whether hymen will get ruptured due to insect bite. This would show the amount of ignorance on the part of the counsel on human anatomy and medical jurisprudence. This is only a sample and many such illogical questions are being noticed by this Court on a daily basis," the High Court said. It said the trial court advocates must keep in mind that they are defending a person's right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, they have a "bounden duty" to put forth appropriate questions during cross examination, the Court said.It, therefore, urged bar leaders to provide platform for young lawyers to learn the art of cross-examination. ."This Court is forced to record its displeasure in the manner, in which, the cross examination is conducted in courts, with the fervent hope that the leaders of the bar will take note of it and will provide a platform for young juniors to learn the art of cross examination," High Court said. Advocate A Harikrishnan appeared for the petitioner. Government Advocate L Baskaran appeared for the Tamil Nadu government..[Read Judgment]
The Madras High Court recently lamented the drastic fall in standards of cross examination before trial courts [A Muthupandi v State]. .Justice N Anand Venkatesh said he was forced to record his displeasure at the standard of cross examination after he realised that most questions put to witnesses were either irrelevant or illogical."At this juncture, this Court has to necessarily record its displeasure in the manner, in which, the witnesses are cross examined. On a daily basis, this Court is able to find that the standard of cross examination of witnesses has gone down drastically. It is quite unfortunate that the trial court advocates are not developing their skills of cross examination. Most of the questions, which are put to the witnesses, are irrelevant and illogical," the High Court said.He further said that while cross examination was considered the crown of a lawyer's advocacy skills, it was unfortunate that trial court lawyers were not making an effort to develop such a skill these days."The art of cross examination was considered as a crown in advocacy skills. If this art is lost, the charm in conducting a trial before a court will also be lost," the judge stated. The Court, therefore, urged the senior members of the Bar to help juniors learn and practice the art of cross examination.Justice Venkatesh made the observations while hearing an appeal filed by a man challenging his conviction and sentence under Sections 376 and 377 of the Indian Penal Code, and the State's appeal seeking enhancement of his sentence..The man had been convicted and sentenced to three years imprisonment for having raped a five-year-old girl. While the Court enhanced the petitioner's sentence to seven years, it noted that witnesses had been subjected to several unnecessary questions during their cross examination before the trial court. "For instance, when P.W.6 was cross examined in this case, a question was put to her and was asked to explain as to whether hymen will get ruptured due to insect bite. This would show the amount of ignorance on the part of the counsel on human anatomy and medical jurisprudence. This is only a sample and many such illogical questions are being noticed by this Court on a daily basis," the High Court said. It said the trial court advocates must keep in mind that they are defending a person's right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, they have a "bounden duty" to put forth appropriate questions during cross examination, the Court said.It, therefore, urged bar leaders to provide platform for young lawyers to learn the art of cross-examination. ."This Court is forced to record its displeasure in the manner, in which, the cross examination is conducted in courts, with the fervent hope that the leaders of the bar will take note of it and will provide a platform for young juniors to learn the art of cross examination," High Court said. Advocate A Harikrishnan appeared for the petitioner. Government Advocate L Baskaran appeared for the Tamil Nadu government..[Read Judgment]
