CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Pearson, J., N.R. Chatterjea, J.
Subala Das - Appellant
Versus
Indra Kumar Hazra-Natabar Hazra & Ors. - Respondent
Decided On : 23-01-1922
Relevance of Question - Examination of Witness - The court considered the relevance of a question asked to a witness during examination and directed the case to go back to the lower court for further consideration based on the provisions of the Evidence Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner examined a witness in a pending suit and a question regarding the witness's unchastity was raised. The relevance of the question was contested, leading to the matter being brought before the Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court directed the case to go back to the lower court for reevaluation of the relevance of the question based on the provisions of the Evidence Act.
Issues: Relevance of the question asked to the witness and its admissibility based on the provisions of the Evidence Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the need for the lower court to consider the relevance of the question in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act.
Final Decision: The case was directed to go back to the lower court for reevaluation, with no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner, who is the defendant No. 6 in a suit pending in the Subordinate Judge's Court at Howrah, examined a witness--Manada Dasi--from whom the petitioner claims to have derived title to the property in dispute. Manada was examined on commission and the opposite party, who is the plaintiff in the suit, put to her the question as to whether she was made pregnant by one Hari Das Ghose. Objection was taken to this question and the matter was brought before the Court. The learned Subordinate Judge held that it was a relevant question.
2. Against that order, the petitioner moved this Court and obtained this Rule.
3. It is stated that the question is insulting and scandalous. But the opposite party contends that it was put because the plaintiff's case was that the witness did not inherit the property by reason of her unchastity during the lifetime of her husband.
4. The form in which the question was asked does not show what period it referred to--whether the lifetime of the witness's husband, or after his death If the plaintiff's sue was that she did not inherit the property of her husband by reason of her unchastity during his lifetime, then the question would be relevant. If, however, it was asked for impeaching her credit as a witness, the Court will have to consider the provisions of Sections 146 and 148 to 152 of the Evidence Act.
5. It is contended on behalf of the opposite party that the statements made in the plaint, taken with those made in the petition opposing the issue of commission for examining the witness, go to show that his case was that the witness did not inherit the property by reason of her unchastity during her husband's lifetime, and as such the question was relevant. The learned Subordinate Judge, however, has not stated any reasons for holding that the question was relevant.
6. In the circumstances, we think that the case should go back to the learned Subordinate Judge. He will consider, having regard to the plaint, the petition, and the issues as framed, whether the question, as it stands, is relevant; and if not, whether the question is allowable, having regard to the provisions of the Evidence Act.
7. No order as to costs.
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.