AI Overview...
-
Cross-Examination Rights - Multiple sources confirm that defendants and co-defendants generally have the right to cross-examine witnesses and each other, provided their interests are not conflicting. Courts have upheld the permissibility of cross-examination by co-defendants, emphasizing procedural fairness and the importance of a fair trial LEENA JOY Vs DR.HARSHAD ZAIN - Kerala, MOHINDER SINGH GILL VS JAGDEEP SINGH - Punjab and Haryana, S.GUNASEKARAN vs LAKSHMIDEVI (DIED) 1.Subramani - Madras.
-
Court Discretion and Conditions - Courts exercise discretion in permitting cross-examination, often requiring payment of costs or adherence to procedural rules. For example, one case permitted cross-examination subject to costs, and another allowed recall of witnesses for cross-examination upon proper application Hazara Singh VS Jagdish Kaur - Punjab and Haryana, JAYANTHI DEVI vs SUMA - Kerala.
-
Limitations and Exceptions - Some cases highlight restrictions, such as when a defendant is not permitted to cross-examine a co-defendant if no conflicting interests are demonstrated, or when procedural lapses prevent cross-examination (e.g., lack of communication or procedural irregularities) B. S. BALAJI VS T. GOVINDARAJU - Karnataka, S.GUNASEKARAN vs LAKSHMIDEVI (DIED) 1.Subramani - Madras.
-
Specific Court Findings - Courts have found it reasonable to allow cross-examination of witnesses or co-defendants to ensure fairness, as seen in decisions where the court set aside orders restricting cross-examination or ordered its allowance to facilitate justice LEENA JOY Vs DR.HARSHAD ZAIN - Kerala, AKHILESH SINGH S/o SANAND SINGH VS KRISHAN BAHADUR SINGH - Madhya Pradesh.
Analysis and Conclusion:
The consensus across the sources indicates that the Cross of Co-Defendant is a recognized procedural right, subject to judicial discretion and procedural rules. Courts generally favor allowing co-defendants to cross-examine witnesses or each other to uphold the principles of a fair trial, provided there are no conflicting interests or procedural violations. This right is crucial for testing evidence and ensuring a comprehensive examination of the case.
Search Results for "Cross of Co Defendant"
2018 Supreme(Online)(KER) 8767 • India - Kerala
Issues: Whether the fourth defendant should be allowed to cross-examine the third defendant after initially stating he would ... Finding of the Court: The court found that allowing the fourth defendant to cross-examine the third defendant was reasonable ... Final Decision: The court allowed the fourth defendant to cross-examine DW3, setting aside t....
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 37852 • India - High Court of Kerala
VIJU ABRAHAM, J
documents for forensic examination - The trial court's order allowing recall of the defendant for cross-examination was upheld as ... in a suit for money recovery, challenging an order allowing the plaintiff to recall the defendant for further cross-examination ... (A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 151 and Order XVIII Rule 17 - Original petition to set aside order of recalling defendant ... The ....
1995 0 Supreme(Kar) 570 • India - Karnataka
H.N.TILHARI
to cross-examine defendant 1. ... The trial court held that the defendant 2 had not made out a case permitting him to cross-examine defendant 1. ... Issues: The main issue was whether the defendant 2 had the right to cross-examine defendant 1 in the context of the small ... As the defendant 2 is not allowed to cross....
2022 0 Supreme(MP) 744 • India - Madhya Pradesh
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
by defendant No. 6 and directed that the cross-examination of defendant No. 1 by co-defendant No. 6 conducted on 5-3-2020 shall ... directed that the cross-examination of defendant No. 1 by co-defendant No. 6 conducted on 5-3-2020 shall form a part of the record ... 6 and the order in which the cross-examination was conducted by co-defendant#....
2008 0 Supreme(Bom) 1594 • India - Bombay
B.P.DHARMADHIKARI
the property from Defendant No:1 unless they are given an opportunity to cross examine him in spite of their written statements ... Evidence Act (1872), S.137:- The oral deposition of defendant No:1 can not be used against the Defendant No:2 and 3 who purchased ... cross-examine defendant no.1. ... no right to cross-examine defendant no.1. ... upon to ....
2008 0 Supreme(Bom) 1585 • India - Bombay
B.P.DHARMADHIKARI
the defendant / uncle. ... to have been purchased after partition between by the plaintiffs father and defendant who is his uncle and in a suit where the defendant ... is alleged to have sold such acquisitions to the other two defendants, such alleged purchasers will have a right to cross-examine ... cross-examine defendant No.1. ... to cross-examine #....
2016 0 Supreme(MP) 904 • India - Madhya Pradesh
VIVEK RUSIA
C.P.C - Cross-Examination of Defendant - Sections 137, 138 of the Evidence Act - The court discussed the provisions of Sections ... Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner had the right to cross-examine defendant no. 1 in the suit. ... 137 and 138 of the Evidence Act and their interpretation, highlighting the right of cross-examination of one defendant by another ... no. 5 and....
1997 0 Supreme(P&H) 1261 • India - Punjab and Haryana
G.C.GARG
cross-examine defendant No. 1, subject to payment of costs. ... Defendant No. 1 appeared as her own witness and was discharged after waiting for cross-examination by defendant No. 2. ... , setting aside the impugned order and permitting defendant No. 2 to cross-examine defendant No. 1, subject to payment of costs. ... Ultimately, she could not be #HL_S....
2012 0 Supreme(P&H) 1504 • India - Punjab and Haryana
M.JEYAPAUL
Finding of the Court: The court found that the second defendant should be permitted to cross-examine the first defendant ... Issues: The issue revolved around the right of a defendant to cross-examine a co-defendant in the absence of conflicting interests ... Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on various decisions to establish that a defendant has the right to #HL_ST....
2023 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 34514 • India - Madras High Court
TO CROSS EXAMINE THE PW1 DUE TO LACK OF COMMUNICATION - COURT ALLOWED THE REVISION PETITIONER/FOURTH DEFENDANT TO CROSS EXAMINE ... The fourth defendant/revision petitioner was not able to cross-examine the PW1 due to lack of communication. ... CIVIL PROCEDURE - RECALL OF WITNESS - CROSS EXAMINATION - SUIT FOR PARTITION - FOURTH DEFENDANT/REVISION PETITIONER WAS NOT ABL....
Filter by Legal Phrase
