The Examination of Witnesses

'Examination of witnesses' refers to interrogating a witness under oath or oath

in a judicial hearing in which evidence is gathered. Question-and-answer
format is always used in the examination of a witness.
To be clear, the testimony of a witness through questioning must be written
down and not just in the form of questions and answers. The deposition of the
witness is read to him or her and signed by both the judge and the witness at
the end of the examination.
Section 135-166 of the Evidence Act deals with the examination of witnesses,
which includes the presentation of evidence and the testimony of witnesses, as
well as the powers of the courts in such matters.
Section 135 specifies the order in which witnesses are to be produced and
examined, and section 136 gives the judges the authority to determine the
admissibility of evidence presented by the parties. 
Examining witnesses is divided into three parts under Section 137, referred to
as "examination in chief," "cross-examination," and "re-examination.".
Witnesses must first be examined in the witness box, then cross-examined,
and finally re-examined if the party calling them so wants. 
The examination of a witness has three parts, and Section 138 of the Evidence
Act says that they must be done in this order:
1. Section 137 of the Evidence Act says that the party that called the witness
gets to question him or her first. This is called "examination-in-chief."
2. If the opposing side wishes to cross-examine the witness, they can do so
after the conclusion of the examination-in-chief. If the opposing party has
any questions, he can answer them. This procedure is referred to as "cross-
examination" in Section 137.
3. If the party who called the witness thinks it's important to question the
witness again after cross-examination, they can. Section 137 of the
Evidence Act of 1872 calls this "re-examination."
For convenience, the provisions of the Evidence Act related to the examination
of witnesses, as indicated above, are discussed under the following
subheadings:
1. Which party is to produce and examine the witnesses’ first
It is up to the courts to determine the order in which witnesses are
called and questioned, and in the lack of such a regulation, to use their own
judgment (section 135).
In civil cases, the order is set by the Code of Civil Procedure from 1908,
and in criminal cases, it is set by the Code of Criminal Procedure from 1898. In
the absence of any of the above, the order will be made at the discretion of
the court. In practice, however, it is left largely on the option of the party
calling witnesses to examine them in any order he or she chooses.
The plaintiff typically has the right to start proceedings in civil lawsuits.
Afterwards, the opposite side is required to state their case and provide proof.
The defendant, on the other hand, has the right to begin if the defendant
admits the plaintiff's allegations and argues that the plaintiff is not entitled to
any part of the remedy sought, either on the basis of law or on the basis of
additional facts stated by the defendant.
In criminal cases, the person who filed the complaint or the prosecutor
has the right to start, and if necessary, the accused person is asked to present
his or her own evidence in defense.
2. Judge's power to decide the admissibility evidence.
In a court case or other legal proceeding, only facts that are either in
question or relevant can be used as evidence. Even if a party doesn't object, it
is the judge's job to make sure that the evidence presented is relevant. Just
because a party agrees to or doesn't object to the presentation of irrelevant
evidence doesn't make it relevant.
When it comes to admissibility, the judge has sole authority to make the
call. All relevant evidence must be admitted, but all irrelevant evidence must
also be excluded by the judge.
Section 136 of the Evidence Act reaffirms this point by allowing the court
to question the parties if the evidence they have presented is relevant or not.
Section 136 gives the judge a wide range of authority, as explained below.
First, the court may interrogate the witness about the claim's relevancy.
A judge will only admit relevant evidence (section 136, para 1).
Secondly, unless a party promises to do so and the court accepts that
commitment, the other must prove the demanded fact first (section 136, para
2).
Thirdly, the judge may also accept or require both facts to be verified if
one is more relevant than the other (section 136, para 3).
3. Examination-in-chief of witnesses
"Examination-in-chief" means that the person who called the witness to
testify is the one who asks the witness the first questions
In other words, the Evidence Act says that the party who calls a witness
gets to question the witness. This is called the witness's "examination in-chief"
(section 137). The questioning-in-chief must be based on important facts
(section 138).
The purpose of the examination-in-chief is to get the witness to tell all
the facts, or as many as he or she can, in order to prove the case of the person
who called the witness.
 Leading Questions in Examination-in-chief
Section 141 of the Evidence Act says that a leading question is one that
suggests the answer that the person who asked it wishes or expects to hear.
In section 142 of the Evidence Act, it says that leading questions can't be asked
in an examination-in-chief if the other side objects to them, unless the court
says so. It goes on to say that during an examination-in-chief, the court will
allow leading questions about:
a. which are introductory or undisputed, or
b. which have, in its opinion, been already sufficiently proved.
So, most of the time, you can't ask leading questions during the examination-
in-chief. The reason for this rule is that the witness is thought to be on the side
of the person who called him or her.
4. Cross-examination of witnesses
Cross-examination is the questioning of a witness by the opposing party at a
trial or hearing.
The opposing party's interrogation of a witness is termed cross-examination
(section 137). The cross examination must be on significant facts, not just
those mentioned in the witness's examination-in-chief (section 138).
The witness can be cross-examined on the entire case. In fact, cross
examination is a real test for a witness's sworn testimony in examination-in-
chief.
 Objects of Cross-examination
The main object of cross-examination is to discredit a witness in any of several
ways, such as
(a) by bringing out contradictions and improbabilities in earlier
testimony,
(b) by suggesting doubts to the witness, and
(c) by trapping the witness into admission that weaken the testimony.

5. Re-examination of witnesses
"Re-examination" means that the party that called the witness in the first place
gets to ask him or her more questions after the other side has done "cross-
examination”.
In other words, when a witness is questioned again after being questioned by
the party who called him or her, this is called the witness's re-examination
(section 137).
The purpose of the re-examination is to explain things that were brought up in
the cross-examination (section 138). The goal of re-examination is to give the
person a chance to clear up any misunderstandings caused by cross-
examination or to refute them.
The re-examination can only be about things that came up in the cross-
examination. If the court lets new information come up during re-examination,
the other side can ask more questions about it during cross-examination
(section 138).
Section 140 of the Evidence Act says that witnesses can be questioned again
about their character.