Witness Examination

Witness examination

ஏன், வழக்கின் பார்ட்டியை முதலிலேயே விசாரித்து விட வேண்டும்?

வழக்கில் உள்ள பார்ட்டிகள், அவர்களின் சாட்சிகளை விசாரிக்கும்போது, கோர்ட்டின் உள்ளே இருக்கலாம். ஆனால், அவ்வாறு அவர் சம்மந்தப்பட்ட சாட்சிகளை விசாரிப்பதற்கு முன்னரே, வழக்கின் பார்ட்டி, தன்னை ஒரு சாட்சியாக விசாரித்து முடித்துக் கொள்ள வேண்டும். அப்போதுதான், தன் சாட்சிகளை விசாரிக்கும் போது கோர்ட்டுக்கு உள்ளே இருக்க அனுமதிப் படுவார். அதற்குப் பதிலாக, வழக்கின் பார்ட்டி, தன்னை கடைசி சாட்சியாக விசாரித்துக் கொள்வதாகச் சொன்னால், அவரின் சாட்சிகளை விசாரிக்கும்போது, கோர்ட்டுக்கு உள்ளே இருக்க நீதிபதி அனுமதிக்க மாட்டார். 

எனவே ஒன்று, தன்னை முதலில் ஒரு சாட்சியாக விசாரித்துக் கொள்ள வேண்டும். அல்லது அவர் சம்மந்தப்பட்ட சாட்சிகளை விசாரிக்கும்போது, அவர் கோர்டுக்கு வெளியே இருக்க வேண்டும். 

The question for consideration is whether a Court has got power to order unexamined witnesses out of Court until their evidence is taken.

Neither the Evidence Act nor the Code of Civil or Criminal Procedure contain any section or rule for ordering witnesses out of Court although it is generally done by the courts as a matter of practice.

The Court has inherent power to regulate the business of the court in the way it thinks bes or to make any order that may be necessary for the ends of justice.

Even in the absence of any specific provision in any enactment, the Court has power to order that no witness, who has to give evidence,  should be present when the depositions of other witnesses are being taken until he himself is examined as a witness in full.

In Halsbury’s Law of England (Simonds Edn) the Rule of Practice is stated to be that at any time during the course of a trial, on an application of any party, the Judge may order witnesses in the case to leave the Court until called for. 

It is also stated in the Halsbury’s Law of England, that unexamined witnesses may be ordered out of court at the request of either party. 

Therefore it is clear that the court has power to order unexamined witnesses out of court at any time during the trial on the application of either party.

The next question for consideration is: Whether a party to a litigation himself as a witness can be ordered out of the court hall unless he examines himself first as his own witness.

The answer is no. It is stated in Roscoe’s Criminal Evidence (16th Edn) that a defendant, if a witness or not cannot be ordered out of Court while he behaves himself becomingly.

In Wigmore on Evidence (3rd Edn) which relating to Sequestration (isolation) of witnesses, it is pointed out that “The case of the party himself is more difficult. It is apparent that the danger of an attempt to falsify testimony and the utility of sequestration to expose it are most emphatic for a party who is a prospective witness. On the other hand, the party’s aid in the conduct of the cause may be indispensable, and has absence is in any case hardly consistent with his general right to protect his interests by watching the conduct of the trial.

In the United States, or in most parts of it, these ‘considerations (looking to the oridinary relations of client and counsel), are probably more forcible than in England, where the counsel has full independence and professional authority. 

The simple solution, avoiding both horns of the dilemma, would be exempt the party from the order of exclusion, but to require him to take the stand first of the witnesses on his side; on the principle that, though he has the right to be present, yet he has also the duty to do all that is feasible towards preventing suspicion and subserving the opponent’s right to sequestration.

In Outram v. Outram, 1877 WN 75 that as parties are competent witnesses, they, alike the other witnesses may be excluded from the Court during the examination of any other witnesses.

It is true that a party to a litigation has got the right to remain in Court while the trial of the suit is going on and it is equally well established that the court has got inherent power to order any person who has to give evidnece out of Court hall when other witnesses ae being examined until that person is called to give evidence. 

Under Sec.135 of the Evidence Act – the ordr in which witnesses are to be produced and examined shall be regulated by the law and practice for the time being relating to Civil and Criminal Procedure respectively and in the absence of any such law, by the discretion of the Court. 

Under Sec.133 of the Evidence Act – the Court has the power to prescribe the order in which witnesses are to be examined, where a party is also a witness, the Court can require him to give evidence before he examines his other witnesses. If he is not willing to do so, the Court can order him out of the Court hall when his other witnesses are giving evidence.

**