Re-Examination
What is Re-Examination?
Re-examination is the act or process of examining a witness in a court of law, after they have been cross-examined by the opposing counsel. The purpose of re-examination is only to get clarification of any doubts created in cross-examination. It allows the advocate to ask further questions but only if they are regarding any matter which arose during cross-examination.
Official definitions of Re-examination
Section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, (IEA) and Section 142 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, define Re-examination as – “The examination of a witness, subsequent to the cross-examination by the party who called him, shall be called his re-examination.” Along with this, they also define Examination-in-Chief and Cross-examination.
Black’s Law Dictionary defines it as “An examination of a witness after a cross-examination, upon matters arising out of such cross-examination.”
Objective of Re-examination
The purpose of re-examination is to ask questions which would give an explanation to the answers given by the witness in cross-examination. It is to clear obscurities and also put new facts which came out during cross-examination, in proper perspective.
The Supreme Court while exhaustively discussing the object of re-examination, held that not only are ambiguities regarding cross-examination cleared in this procedure, but also, any other explanation that the Public Prosecutor might require.[1] So, the Public Prosecutor has the freedom to ask questions he deems necessary for that purpose, subject to the control of the court.
Rules followed during Re-Examination
Order of Examination
The order for the examination of witnesses is mentioned in Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 143 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam – examination-in-chief, followed by cross-examination, and lastly, a re-examination.
Questions during Re-Examination
The re-examination must be confined to the explanation of matters arising in cross-examination. Further, it has been held that one cannot supplement examination-in-chief with re-examination and start introducing new facts without concern for cross-examination.[2] New matters can be introduced during re-examination only with the permission of the Court, and then the opposing party has the right to cross-examine the witness on the same point.
Recall of witness by Courts
The Allahabad High Court held that while it possess the authority to summon any witness under Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure, it cannot invoke casually at the mere request of a litigant. The authority is exercised only when it is essential to summon a witness necessary for the just decision of a case. Further, it also held that discrepancies in the examination and cross-examination of a witness do not give rise for grounds to recall witness or call another witness.[3]
Importance of Re-Examination
The Supreme Court held that the closing of prosecution evidence is not an absolute bar to summon and examine or recall and re-examine a witness at any stage. It is based on the test of essentiality of evidence, that the Court could re-call the witness for re-examination. The Court held that filling in the lacunae of the prosecution’s case cannot bar the allowance of an application under Section 311 CrPC.[4] This is to prevent derailment of justice, and ensure that the truth is discovered, to manifest justice.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court held the re-examination should be done to the satisfaction of the court, as it is paramount for the just decision of the case. At the same time it held that allowing re-examination must be used sparingly and judiciously with utmost care and caution to obtain the truth and proof of the facts.[5]
Research that engages with Re-Examination
Re-Examination
This paper by Judith Robinson, claims that the process of re-examination is the trickiest part of witness testimony, as there may be very little to almost no preparation of witnesses for the same. Thus, the author argues that this process should be approached with considerable caution, especially when some inconsistency as arisen between the examination-in-chief and cross-examination.
- ↑ Rammi Alias Rameshwar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1999 (8) SCC 649.
- ↑ Pannayar v. State of Tamil Nadu, by Inspector of Police, AIR 2010 SC 85.
- ↑ Ashutosh Yadav v. State of UP, 2024 SCC OnLine All 1018.
- ↑ Varsha Garg v. State of M.P, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 986.
- ↑ Paijaram v. State of M.P., M.Cr.C. No. 11624/2016.
