In response to the deteriorating standards of cross-examination in lower courts, the Madras High Court has urged senior members of the Bar to assist junior members in learning and practising this essential advocacy skill.
Justice N Anand Venkatesh expressed his disappointment after observing that a majority of questions posed 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 Court asserted.
While cross-examination is regarded as the crown of a lawyer’s advocacy skills, it is regrettable that trial court attorneys are not making an effort to develop this skill today.
“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 said.
Justice N Anand Venkatesh of the Madras High Court expressed his disappointment at the declining standards of cross-examination in lower courts.
The judge made these remarks while hearing an appeal filed by a man challenging his conviction and sentence under Sections 376 and 377 of the Indian Penal Code, and an appeal by the state seeking an increase in the man’s sentence.
The man had been convicted and sentenced to three years in prison for raping a five-year-old girl. The Court increased his sentence to seven years and observed that witnesses had been asked many irrelevant questions during cross-examination in the lower court.
In light of this, the Court urged senior members of the Bar to assist junior members in learning and practicing the art of cross-examination.
“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 Court said.
The Madras High Court emphasized that trial court lawyers must remember that they are defending a constitutionally protected right under Article 21, and have an “absolute duty” to ask relevant questions during cross-examination. The Court urged senior members of the Bar to provide young attorneys with opportunities 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,” Court asserted.
