Rafiq khel law chamber

𝐌𝐀𝐆𝐈𝐒𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐓𝐄 𝐓𝐑𝐈𝐀𝐋
241-A:- Supply of documents on Magistrate Trial.
242:- Framing of charge.
243:- Conviction on pleading guilty.
244:- Recording of evidence in case the accused plead not guilty.
245 (1):- Acquittal of an accused after evidence.
245 (2):- Conviction of an accused after evidence.
245-A:- Previous conviction of an accused shall be added to the sentence.
246:- Omitted.
247:- Non-appearance of the complainant:- The Magistrate shall acquit the accused unless for reasons adjourning the matter.
248:- Withdrawal of complaint:- If complainant before a final order is passed in any case satisfy the Magistrate that there are sufficient grounds for permitting him to withdraw his complaint, the Magistrate may permit him to withdraw the same and thereupon acquit the accused.
249:- Power to stop proceeding when complainant.
249-A:- Power of Magistrate to acquit accused at any stage.
250:- False, Frivolous, or vexatious accusation.
250-A:- Special summons i.e petty offence.
Note:-
1. Dismissal of an application U/s 249 is not Appealable but a criminal Revision application U/s 439-A.
2. Acquittal U/s 249-A is Appealable U/s 417 before Honourable High Court.
𝐒𝐄𝐒𝐒𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐒 𝐓𝐑𝐈𝐀𝐋
265-C:- Supply of statement and documents to accused.
265-D:- When a charge is to be framed.
265-E:- Plead guilty, if so, would be convicted.
265-F:- Evidence for prosecution.
265-G:- Summoning up to prosecutor and defence.
265-H:- Acquittal or conviction.
265-I:- Procedure in case of previous conviction.
265-J:- Statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C admissible.
265-K:- Power of Court to acquit accused at any stage.
265-L:- Power of Government to stay prosecution.

"SECOND 164 CRPC STATEMENT"
S.498‑‑Pre‑arrest bail.

One eye‑witness in his second statement recorded under S. 164, Cr.P.C. had backed out from his previous statements and implicated the accused in the case.

Eye‑witnesses mentioned in the F.I.R. had not implicated the accused either in their statements recorded by the Investigating Officer under S. 161, Cr.P.C. or subsequently recorded by the Magistrate under S. 164, Cr.P.C.

Case against the accused, thus, appeared to have been launched mala fide and dishonestly.

Pre‑arrest bail was granted to accused accordingly.

2001 M L D 244 [Karachi]
Before Muhammad Roshan Essani, J

THE ART OF CROSS EXAMINATION

I. Cross Examination- what is?

Cross examination in essence is a mechanism which has developed over centuries to scrutinize oral testimony in order to sift the truth from falsity. In the words of illustrious author John Henry Wigmore cross examination “is beyond any doubt the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth”.[1]

Renowned author Best[2] describes it as “the interrogation by an advocate of a witness really hostile to his cause whether in form coming before the Court as his witness or that of his opponent.”

Cross-examination is one of the greatest modern weapons of testing the veracity of a statement made by a person. It is both, a sword of attack and a shield of defence.[3] It is not just a formality, but is a valuable right of accused and best method to ascertain forensic truth.[4]

Richardson, J has observed about cross examination that, “experience has proved that it is, of all others, the most effective, the most satisfactory, and the most indispensable test of the evidence narrated on the witness stand. I know of no disagreement, among the expounders of evidence, upon the importance of cross examination[5].”

Cross-examination is fairly regarded as one of the most effective tests by means of which the law has worked out a method for the discovery of truth and by means of which the situation of the witness with respect to the parties and to the subject of litigation, his interests, his motives, his inclination and prejudices, his character, his means of obtaining correct and certain knowledge of the facts to which he bears testimony, the manner in which he has used the means, his powers of discernment, memory and description are fully investigated and ascertained and submitted to the consideration of the jury, who have an opportunity of observing his demeanour and of determining the just value of his testimony. It is not easy for a witness, subjected to this test to impose on a Court or jury for however artful the fabrication of falsehood may be, it cannot embrace all the circumstances to which a cross-examination may be extended. [6]

II. Objects of Cross Examination:-

In Halsbury’s laws of England[7], it has been stated that, “Cross examination is directed to:-

· The credibility of the witness,

· The facts to which he had deposed in chief, including the cross examiner’s version thereof, and;

· The facts which the witness had not deposed but to which the cross examiner thinks he is able to depose.”

M. Monir, CJ,[8] while adverting to the objects of cross examination has highlighted two fold objects of cross examination i.e.

· To bring out desirable facts of the case modifying the examination-in-chief or establishing the cross examiner’s owns case, and;

· To impeach the credit of witness.

John Calvin Reed opines that the object of cross-examination is to bring out facts which go to diminish or impeach the trustworthiness or credit of the witness. Such tact generally remains undisclosed in the examination-in-chief of the witness and therefore it is the duty of the cross-examiner to bring them out by proper interrogation. Some of these facts can be obtained only from the witness himself, particularly those which concern his personal conduct and his sources of knowledge for the case in hand[9].

Lahore High Court Lahore, in a recent case[10] held that whole purpose of trial/inquiry was to find the truth to impart justice. Cross-examination was strongest tool to achieve the object; it was very important that accused should have the facility of cross-examining the complainant and his witnesses in as complete manner as possible. Object of cross-examination with the assistance of earlier statement made by the complainant or his witness was to protect accused against untruthful witnesses.

To sum up, the objects of cross examination can be put as under:

i) To test the credibility of the witness.

ii) To test the truthfulness of the facts which he has stated in chief-examination.

iii) To put the defense version in the mouth of the witnesses.

iv) To know the facts which the witness did not state.

v) To destroy, weaken or to qualify the case of the opponent and to establish the party’s own case by means of the opponent’s witnesses.

vi) To elicit something in favor of the party conducting cross-examination.

vii) To discredit the witness.

viii) To impeach the accuracy, credibility and general value of the evidence given in chief to sift the fact already stated by the witness, to detect and expose discrepancies or to elicit suppressed facts which will support the case of the cross examining party.

III. Scope of cross examination:

From the cross-examiner’s angle, it is richly wide and varied. It embodies the following other branches of sciences[11]:

1) Rules of factual inquiries, i.e. the science of facts.

2) Rules of logic.

3) Principles of human psychology.

4) Principles of testimonial faith.

5) Science of administration of justice.

6) Art of winning people including the art of influencing people.

7) Art of conversation.

IV. CROSS EXAMINATION: GOVERNING PRINCIPLES:

Principles governing the operation of cross examination may be bifurcated into two heads viz. statutory and non-statutory. An endeavor has been made to cover the significant facets of these principles as a detailed narrative would be too voluminous to be covered herein.

A. Statutory Principles:-

Qanoon-e- Shahdat Order 1984 embodies in it articles 130-161 (Ss. 135-165 Indian Evidence Act 1872) which ordain provisions envisioning statutory principles concerning the examination of witnesses.

B. Non-statutory principles:-

Non-statutory principles governing cross examination are those which are independent of any statute and have been developed by the Courts, jurists and advocates who were known for their mastery in deploying the art of cross examination. It is a fact universally acceptable that cross-examination, like other branches of art, essentially revolves around the skill and the mastery of a cross examiner. The annals of history have not seen many of the cross examiners who used to conduct their cross examinations in a legendary manner. It is for this reason that cross examination is often referred[12] to as the rarest, the most useful and the most difficult to be acquired of the accomplishments of an advocate. It is the severest test of an advocate’s skill. It is undoubtedly a great intellectual effort as it involves a battle of mind with mind.

Francis Wellman, highlighting the skill of the cross examiner writes[13],” The issue of a cause rarely depends upon a speech and is but seldom even affected by it. But there is never a cause contested, the result of which is not mainly dependent upon the skill with which the advocate conducts his cross-examination”.

Also it has been held in a case[14] from Indian jurisdiction that cross examination is a powerful and valuable weapon for the purpose of testing the veracity of a witness, the accuracy and the completeness of history and that the extent of its effectiveness no doubt depends upon the dexterity of the wielder of the weapon.

The questions which are asked during the course of cross examination are to be asked by following the working rules which have been developed by barristers having proficiency in the art. These working rules include[15];

· Come to the point as soon as possible,

· Do not argue with a witness,

· Do not ask a question unless there is a good reason for it,

· Except in cases where your position is so bad that nothing can injure it, and something may improve it, do not splash about and do not ask a question without being fairly certain that the answer will be favorable to you,

· If a witness is manifestly lying, leave him entirely alone,

· Keep calm.

Francis Wellman[16] has further dilated upon the subject and has appreciated David Paul Brown for what is known as "Golden Rules for the Examination of Witnesses" by David Paul Brown. After paying him a tribute, Wellman goes onto reproduce the most read and applied rules of cross examination developed by David Paul Brown. This is what he wrote:

“David Paul Brown, a very able niisi prius lawyer of great experience at the Philadelphia Bar, many years ago condensed his experiences into eighteen paragraphs which he entitled, "Golden Rules for the Examination of Witnesses”.

“Although I am of the opinion that it is impossible to embody in any set of rules the art of examination of witnesses, yet the “Golden Rules " contain so many useful and valuable suggestions that it is well to reprint them here for the benefit of the student”:

“I. Except in indifferent matters, never take your eye from that of the witness; this is a channel of communication from mind to mind, the loss of which nothing can compensate.”

“II. Be not regardless, either, of the voice of the witness; next to the eye this is perhaps the best interpreter of his mind. The very design to screen conscience from crime—the mental reservation of the witness— is often manifested in the tone or accent or emphasis of the voice. For instance, it becomes important to know that the witness was at the corner of Sixth and Chestnut streets at a certain time, the question is asked. Were you at the corner of Sixth and Chestnut streets at six o'clock? A frank witness would answer, perhaps I was near there. But a witness who had been there, desirous to conceal the fact, and to defeat your object, speaking to the letter rather than the spirit of the inquiry, answers, No ; although he may have been within a stone's throw of the place, or at the very place, within ten minutes of the time. The common answer of such a witness would be, I was not at the corner at six o’ clock. Emphasis upon both words plainly implies a mental evasion or equivocation, and gives rise with a skilful examiner to the question. At what hour were you at the corner, or at what place were you at six o'clock and in nine instances out of ten it will appear, that the witness was at the place about the time, or at the time about the place. There is no scope for further illustrations; but be watchful, I say, of the voice, and the principle may be easily applied.”

“III. Be mild with the mild; shrewd with the crafty; confiding with the honest; merciful to the young, the frail, or the fearful; rough to the ruffian, and a thunderbolt to the liar. But in all this, never be unmindful of your own dignity. Bring to bear all the powers of your mind, not that you may shine, but that virtue may triumph, and your cause may prosper.”

“IV. In a criminal, especially in a capital case, so long as your cause stands well, ask but few questions; and be certain never to ask any the answer to which, if against you, may destroy your client, unless you know the witness perfectly well, and know that his answer will be favorable equally well; or unless you be prepared with testimony to destroy him, if he play traitor to the truth and your expectations.”

“V. An equivocal question is almost as much to be avoided and condemned as an equivocal answer; and it always leads to, or excuses, an equivocal answer. Singleness of purpose, clearly expressed, is the best trait in the examination of witnesses, whether they be honest or the reverse. Falsehood is not detected by cunning, but by the light of truth, or if by cunning, it is the cunning of the witness, and not of the counsel.”

“VI. If the witness determined to be witty or refractory with you, you had better settle that account with him at first, or its items will increase with the examination. Let him have an opportunity of satisfying himself either that he has mistaken your power, or his own. But in any result, be careful that you do not lose your temper; anger is always either the precursor or evidence of assured defeat in every intellectual conflict.”

“VII. Like a skilful chess-player, in every move, fix your mind upon the combinations and relations of the game—partial and temporary success may otherwise end in total and remediless defeat.”

“VIII. Never undervalue your adversary, but stand steadily upon your guard; a random blow may be just as fatal as though it was directed by the most consummate skill; the negligence of one often cures, and sometimes renders effective, the blunders of another.”

“IX. Be respectful to the Court and to the jury; kind to your colleague; civil to your antagonist; but never sacrifice the slightest principle of duty to an overweening deference toward either.”

Judge Perry[17] says: “Cross examination, too, is entirely a matter of judgment. Two golden rules handed down from eighteenth century, and may be from beyond, are still unlearned lessons to each succeeding generation of advocates”:

i. “Never ask a question without having a good reason “to assign for asking it”,

ii. Never hazard a critical question without having good ground to believe that the answer will be in your favor”.

Judge Joseph Wesley Donovan[18] says: “There are no better rules of cross-examination than five”:

(1) “Know what you need and stop when you get it”.

(2) “Risk no case on the hazard of an answer that may destroy it”.

(3) “Hold your temper while you lead the witness, if convenient, to lose his”.

(4) “Ask as if wanting one answer when you desire the opposite, if the witness is against you; and reverse the tactics if he is more tractable”.

(5) “Treat a witness like a runaway c**t; and see that he does not get too much the start of his master; and if he does, let go of the reins at the first safe turn in the testimony; but if you see any object to break his running, call the turn quickly”.

Besides these rules, there are numerous other rules envisaged and followed by lawyers throughout the world. Some of these rules are being reproduced here in below:-

i. Cross-examination of a witness should never be commenced without the best preparation and without posting one’s self with all the necessary details concerning the witness and the point on which he would be called upon to depose.

ii. Immaterial discrepancies may not be highlighted too much. The cross examination for immaterial discrepancy is generally useless.

iii. A moderate witness should not be cross examined severely.

iv. An unwilling or reluctant witness should not be pressed too much. “When you find a witness unwilling to give the evidence you seek, and you have drawn him a near to the point as there is any hope of his being drawn or driven, it is always dangerous to attempt to urge him further. If you have nearly got an affirmative, and you press him over much, you may imitate him into giving you a direct negative.[19]”

v. Unnecessary information should not be extracted in cross-examination.

vi. Cross examination must be stopped when one gets one’s point. Unnecessary cross examination may be avoided.

vii. Unnecessarily various questions should not be put in order to please the cross examiner’s client.

viii. Too much should not be expected from adversary’s witness.

ix. A cross examiner should never create an impression in the mind of a witness that he is his enemy even if he has to elicit something un-pleasant form him.

x. Past history or some unfortunate incident in the life of the witness must be brought out by some suitable apology or in a pleasant manner. It is better to use introductory expression of deploring the necessity of asking questions, and representing it as one of the unpleasant but imperative duty of cross examiner.

xi. “Do not rush through your cross-examination. There is a nothing more common with beginners than going too fast. They are frequently told by the judge that they forget that he has to take down the answer when the evidence is coming well, there is no doubt a great temptation to let be like a rush of water which shoots over the mill-wheel instead of turning it.”[20].

xii. “A question should not be asked too broadly. The whole point should not be put before the witness otherwise one may get it denied in the lump”.[21]

xiii. A witness who refuses to answer a material question should not be pressed too much. A refusal to answer or an evasion of one’s question will frequently be more serviceable than words.

xiv. Material question should not be put right away, rather should always be couched in immaterial questions.

xv. The cross examiner should never ask a question the answer to which may be adverse to his case.

xvi. A witness should not be reminded that he is on oath.

xvii. A witness should not be cross examined on unimportant details.

xviii. A cross examiner should never lose his temper and should not exhibit his ill feelings.

xix. A cross examiner should not appeal to the sympathy of the judge or jury too often.

xx. A cross examiner should be always ready with law and evidence.

xxi. A judge should not be interfered if he starts cross questioning.

xxii. The cross examiner should know the answer before asking the question.

xxiii. Every question should be a leading question.

xxiv. Each fact has to be put before the witness in a separate leading question.

xxv. The cross examiner should demonstrate his grasp of the facts to the witness and jury in leading questions.

xxvi. The cross examiner should limit and control the testimony and witness and should not let the witness explain.

xxvii. No questions to a witness who has not hurt the cross examiner’s case.

xxviii. If a cross examiner can not contradict or impeach the witness or testimony, he should be nice and give a cursory or apparent cross and sit down.

xxix. A cross examiner should be confident, should know where he is and where his documents are in the Courtroom.

# # #. A cross examiner should use discovery, deposition, answers, prior statements, and other witness testimony to cross.

V. FORMS OF QUESTIONS/INTERROGATON PUT DURING CROSS EXAMINATION:

A cross examiner, while conducting cross examination of a witness, put various questions to such witness which may take various forms. Some of the forms are elaborated hereunder:-

1. Leading Question:-

A question is said to be leading when it indicates the answer of it. In other words it may be defined as “any question suggesting the answer which the person putting it wishes or expects to receive[22]”.

Further it may be explained that a leading question is one which either (a) suggests the answer desired, or (b) assumes the existence of disputed facts as to which the witness is to testify.[23]

A question is leading where the question assumes any fact which is in controversy, so that the answer may really or apparently admit that fact. Such are the forked questions habitually put by some lawyers if unchecked, as ‘what was the plaintiff doing when the defendant struck him?’ the controversy being whether the defendant did strike. A dull or a forward witness may answer the first part of the question and neglect the past.[24]

Leading questions, as a general rule, are not allowed in examination-in-chief and re-examination[25]. However, the prohibition is not absolute. The Court may allow such questions under Order XVIII, Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 though objected to as leading question. Discretion of Court largely rests with the trial Court and depends on the circumstances, as demeanor of the witnesses, the tenor of the preceding questions etc[26].

To shorten proceedings, and bring the witness as quickly as possible to the material points of the case, it is not only permissible, but proper, to lead him as to matters which are introductory, or not really in dispute. Frequently one counsel will indicate to opposing counsel that the witness may be led up to a particular point.[27]

A question which merely directs the attention of the witness to a particular topic, without suggesting the answer required, is not objectionable.[28]

The rule will be relaxed where the inability of a witness to answer questions put in the regular way, obviously arises from defective memory, on account of illness, illiteracy, old age or failing memory. The object of putting leading questions to such a witness is to revive or refresh his memory by drawing his attention to a particular topic, without suggesting any answer.[29]

The objection to leading questions is not that they are absolutely illegal, but only that they are unfair. The Court may, in its discretion, allow leading questions in proper cases.[30]

The Court has to determine, and not the counsel, whether a leading question should be permitted, and the responsibility for the permission rests with the Court.[31]

The answers to a leading question are not inadmissible though the method by which they were obtained may rob them of all or most of their significance.[32]

Exceptions to the rule that leading questions should not be asked in examination-in-chief or in re-examination:

v Leading questions may be asked as to introductory or undisputed matters or as to matters sufficiently proved,

v Leading questions as to the identity of persons or things may be allowed by the Court,

v Leading questions may be allowed to be asked of a witness, to contradict another witness as to expressions used by the latter,

v Leading questions may be allowed to assist the memory of the witness,

v The rule forbidding leading questions may in certain circumstances be relaxed where the witness is wanting in understanding,

v Leading questions may be put to a witness where the witness appears to be hostile to the party calling him, or interested for the other party, or unwilling to give evidence.

Leading questions, as a matter of course, are allowed during cross-examination[33]. The reason why leading questions are allowed to be put to an adverse witness in cross examination is that the purpose of a cross-examination being to test the accuracy, credibility and general value of the evidence given, and to sift the facts already stated by the witness, it sometimes becomes necessary for a prty to put leading questions in order to elicit facts in support of his case, even though the facts so elicited may be entirely unconnected with facts testified to in an examination-in-chief.[34]

However, there are two kinds of leading questions which cannot be asked at all either in examination-in-chief and re-examination, or in cross-examination:

Firstly, counsel is not entitled to go the length of putting the very words into the mouth of the witness which he is to echo back,

Secondly, a question which assumes facts are proved which have not been proved, or which assumes that particular answers have been given which in fact have not been given, is not permissible either in examination-in-chief and re-examination or in cross-examination.[35]

2. Misleading Questions:-

Misleading questions are those improper questions which are in reality several questions combined or in which some assumption is covertly made which the questioner would not dare to ask openly or such questions which are unfair and perplexing.[36]

3. Direct and indirect Questions:-

Questions may be termed direct or indirect only in relation to the particular fact to be elicited. A question may be called direct which, if answered, will either confirm or disprove the fact interrogated, on the other hand, it may be styled indirect when its answer will neither confirm nor prove the fact directly, but will tend to establish it only inferentially, either by itself or when taken along with other facts.

4. Fishing Questions:-

Questions put point blank or with the object of fishing out anything which the interrogator may find useful are fishing questions.[37]

5. Questions testing credit:-

Where interrogation is carried only to test the memory or credit of the witness, it is cross examination testing credit. The phrase to discredit a witness does not necessarily convey the notion of discrediting by making him appear to be perjured. What is meant is that the cross examiner must, by that method, attempt to show that the witness’ evidence is not to be implicitly believed, that is mistaken in the whole or in parts of it. [38]

6. Digressive questions:-

In order to use this method effectively, it is necessary to find out some collateral means tending to contradict the facts deposed to by the witness, not in an open manner by eliciting an inconsistent statement from the mouth of the witness, but by extracting something that in effect can be associated with the matter sought for.[39]

7. Progressive and cumulative questions:-

When the circumstances of the case do not permit a point being made out by direct questions, it becomes necessary to lead the witness on and extract from him bit by bit that which you require as a whole. Let the witness by his answers lay one layer over another till the wall is raised to the required height. This is always the safest course to adopt in dealing with unwilling witnesses, who, though not liars, are found inclined to avoid or suppress the truth, if possible. The gradual process leads them to think that by the slight encroachments thus effectual their main object to avoid the truth will not suffer, while in fact losing their ground inch by inch they lose the whole field though unwillingly.[40]

8. Intimidating questions:-

Questions which cause anger or shame in the witness and are put by coercive and confusing manner are intimidating questions.

9. Incriminating questions:-

The questions, the tendency of which is to expose the witness or the wife or the husband of the witness, to any criminal charge, penalty or forfeiture, are incriminating questions.

VI. Epilogue:-

In order to epitomize, reference[41] is made to Cox who made his observations in his book, " The Advocate, His Training, Practice, Rights, and Duties," written in England in late 19th century thus: " In concluding these remarks on cross-examination, the rarest, the most useful, and the most difficult to be acquired of the accomplishments of the advocate, we would again urge upon your attention the importance of calm discretion. In addressing a jury you may sometimes talk without having anything to say, and no harm will come of it. But in cross-examination every question that does not advance your cause injures it. If you have not a definite object to attain, dismiss the witness without a word. There are no harmless questions here; the most apparently unimportant may bring destruction or victory. If the summit of the orator's art has been rightly defined to consist in knowing when to sit down, that of an advocate may be described as knowing when to keep his seat. Very little experience in our Courts will teach you this lesson, for every day will show to your observant eye instances of self-destruction brought about by imprudent cross-examination. Fear not that your discreet reserve may be mistaken for carelessness or want of self-reliance. The true motive will soon be seen and approved. Your critics are lawyers, who know well the value of discretion in an advocate; and how indiscretion in cross-examination cannot be compensated by any amount of ability in other duties. The attorneys are sure to discover the prudence that governs your tongue. Even if the wisdom of your abstinence be not apparent at the moment, it will be recognized in the result. Your fame may be of slower growth than that of the talker, but it will be larger and more enduring."

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS

Books

· Gopal S. Chaturvedi, Field’s Commentary on Law of Evidence (12th Ed. 2006)

· Aiyar & Aiyer, The Principles and Precedents of the Art of Cross-examination (10th Ed. Wadhwa Nagpur, Dehli, 2004)

· Francis Wellman, The Art of Cross Examination (The Mecmillian Company, 2nd Edition, , London, 1919)

· Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th Ed. Vol. 17

· M. Monir CJ, Law of Evidence, Revised by H.S. Ursekar (Sixth Edition, The University Book Agency, 2004)

· John Henry Wigmore, Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law usually known as Wigmore on Evidence (1904)

· John Calvin Reed, Conduct of Law Suit(First Revised Edition, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1885)

· P. Ramanatha Iyer & P. Raghava Iyer, The Principles and Precedents of the Art of Cross Examination (7th Edition, Law Book Company, Allahabad, 1984)

· Francis Wellman, The Art of Cross Examination (The Mecmillian Company, 2nd Edition, , London, 1919)

· Rehmat Ullah , Art of Cross-Examination

· Taylor, Evidence (12th Ed.)

· Cox, The Advocate, his Training, Practice, Rights, and Duties, (England, late 19th century) quoted in Francis Wellman, The Art of Cross Examination (The Mecmillian Company, London, 1919)

· His Honour Judge Edward Abbott Parry, The Seven Lamps of Advocacy (Fisher Unwin,1923)

· Judge Joseph Wesley Donovan, Tact in Court (Sixth Edition, Sweet and Maxwell, London, 1915)

· Richard Harris, K.C, Harris' Hints on Advocacy (twelfth edition London: Stevens & Sons, Ltd. 1937)

· Robinson, Benjn, Bench and bar: Reminiscences of one of the last of an ancient race,(F.B. Rothman (Littleton, Colo.)

· P. Ramanatha Aiyar & NS Ranganatha Aiyer, Cross-Examination Principles and Precedents (3rd Edition, Wadhwa and Company Nagpur, 2003)

· Qanoon-e-Shahdat Order 1984

· Stephen, Digest of Law of Evidence (12th Edition)

· Taylor, Evidence (12th Edition) S.1431

· Hardwike, Art of Winning Cases

· Sir Patrick Hastings, Cases in Court (1950)

· Francis Wellman, Day in Court, (The Mecmillian Company, New York, 1910)

· James Ram, A treatise on facts as subjects of inquiry by a jury, (Baker, Voorhis & Co. Publishers,06 NAASSAU Street, New York,1890)

· Phipson, Evidence, 15th Ed.

· Sir John Woodroffe and Syed Amir Ali, Law of Evidence, (Eighteenth Edition, Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur)

Cases

· Muhammad Yasin alias Mithou v. State, 2010 P.Cr.L.J. 1253

· State v. Campbell, 1 Rich. L. 129

· Stat of U.P. v. Shanker, AIR 1981 SC 897

· Khadim Hussain v. Sate, 2010 SCMR 1090

· Juwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 373

· Muhammad Ashiq v. Muhammad Anwar 2005 YLR 933

· Mir Hassan v. State 199 SCMR 1418

“