Leading questions may be asked in cross-examination.

Any witness may be asked, whilst under examination, whether any contract, grant or other disposition of property, as to which he is giving evidence, was not contained in a document. If he says that it was, or if he is about to make any statement as to the contents of any document, which, in the opinion of the Court, ought to be produced, the adverse party may object to such evidence being given until such a document is produced, or until facts have been proved, which entitle the party who called the witness to give secondary evidence of it.

Explanation: - A witness may give oral evidence of statements made by other persons about the contents of documents if such documents are themselves relevant facts.

Illustration:

The question is whether A assaulted B?

C deposes that he heard A to say to D, "B wrote a letter accusing of theft, and I will be revenged on him". This a statement is relevant as showing A's motive for assault and the evidence may be given of it, though no other evidence is given about the letter.

A witness may be cross-examined as to the previous statements made by him in writing or reduced in writing, and relevant to matters in question, without such writing being shown to him or being proved; but if it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention must, before the writing can be proved, be called to those parts of which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him.

When a witness is cross examined, he may, in addition to the questions herein-before referred to, be asked any questions which tend,-

1. to test his veracity

2. to discover who he is and what is his position in life, or

3. to shake his credit, by injuring his character, although the answer to such questions might tend directly or indirectly expose him to a penalty or forfeiture

If any question relates to a matter relevant to the suit or proceeding, a witness shall not be excused from answering any question as to any matter relevant to the matter in issue in any suit or in any civil or criminal proceeding, upon the ground that the answer to such question will criminate, or may tend directly or indirectly to expose, such witness to a penalty or forfeiture of any kind.

Provided that no such answer, which a witness shall be compelled to give, shall subject to any arrest or prosecution, or be proved against him in any criminal proceeding, except a prosecution for giving false evidence by such answer.

If any such question relates to matter not relevant to the suit or proceeding, except in so far as it affects the credit of the witness by injuring his character, the Court shall decide whether or not the witness shall be compelled to answer it, and may, if it thinks fit, warn the witness that he is not obliged to answer it. In exercising its discretion, the court shall have regard to the following considerations: -

1. Such questions are proper if they are of such a nature that the truth of the imputation conveyed by them would seriously affect the opinion of the court as to the credibility of the witness on the matter to which he testifies;

2. Such questions are improper if the imputation, which they convey, relates to matters so remote in time, or of such a character, that the truth of the imputation would not affect, or would affect in a slight degree, the opinion of the Court as to the credibility of the witness on the matter to which he testifies;

3. Such questions are improper if there is a great disproportion between the importance of the imputation made against the witness's character and the importance of his evidence;

4. The Court may, if it sees fit, draw, from the witness's refusal to answer, the interference that the answer if given would be unfavourable.

This is very wholesome provision. The right to cross-examination may turn an engine of oppression in the hands of an unscrupulous cross-examiner, and a witness may be subjected to the grossest insult or annoyance by being made to answer a series of questions affecting the sanctity of his private life or character or improprieties of conduct of a very distant date, no matter howsoever remote their bearing may be, under the guise of cross-examination to credit.

This provision lays down that if any such question is not directly material to the issue, but is relevant to the matter only in so far as it affects the credit of the witness by injuring his character, it is for the court to decide whether or not the witness shall be compelled to answer it.

Such question as is referred above ought to be asked, unless the person asking it has reasonable grounds for thinking that the imputation, which it conveys, is well founded.

Illustrations:

1. A Barrister is instructed by an attorney or vakil that an important witness is a dakait. This is a reasonable ground for asking the witness whether he is a dakait.

2. A pleader is informed by a person in Court that an important witness is a dakait. The informant, on being questioned by the pleader, gives satisfactory reasons for his statement. This is a reasonable ground from asking the witness whether he is a dakait.

3. A witness, of whom nothing whatever is known, is asked at random whether he is a dakait. There are here no reasonable grounds for the question

4. A witness, of whom nothing whatever is known, being questioned as to his mode of life and means of living, gives unsatisfactory answers. This may be a reasonable ground for asking him if he is a dakait.

If the Court is of the opinion that such question was asked without reasonable grounds, it may, if it was asked by any barrister, pleader, vakil or attorney, report the circumstances of the case to the High Court or any authority to which such barrister, pleader, vakil, or attorney is subject to the exercise of his profession.

The Court may forbid any questions or inquiries which it may regard as indecent or scandalous, although such questions or inquiries may have some bearing on the questions before the Court, unless they relate to facts in issue, or to matters necessary to be known in order to determine whether or not the facts in issue existed.

The Court shall forbid any question which appears to it to be intended to insult or annoy, or which, though proper in itself, appears to the Court needlessly offensive in form

When a witness has been asked and he has answered any question, which is relevant to the enquiry only so far it tends to shake his credit by injuring his character, no evidence shall be given to contradict him; but if he answers falsely, he may afterwards be charged with giving false evidence.

Exceptions:

1. If a witness is asked whether he has been previously convicted of any crime and denies it, evidence may be given of his previous conviction.

2. If A witness is asked any question tending to impeach his impartiality and answers it by denying the facts suggested, he may be contradicted.

Illustrations:

1. A claim against an underwriter is resisted on he ground of fraud.The claimant is asked whether, in a former transaction, he had not made a fraudulent claim. He denies it. Evidence is offered to show that he did make such a claim.The evidence is inadmissible.

2. A witness is asked whether he was not dismissed from a situation for dishonesty. He denies it. Evidence is offered to show that he was dismissed for dishonesty. The evidence is not admissible.

3. A affirms that on a certain day he was B at Lahore. A is asked whether he himself was not at Calcutta on that day. He denies it. Evidence is offered to show that A was on that day at Calcutta. The evidence is admissible, not as contradicting A on a fact which affects his credit, but as contradicting the alleged fact that B was seen on the day in question in Lahore.In each of these cases the witness might, if his denial was false, be charged with giving false evidence.

4. A is asked whether his family has not had a blood fued with the family of B against whom he gives evidence. He denies it. He may be contradicted on the ground that the question tends to impeach his impartiality.

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.