Chief Examination Omissions Curable in Cross-Examination

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and K. Vinod Chandran in the case of K. S. Dinachandran v. Shyla Joseph & Ors. (2025) set aside Kerala High Court and Trial Court decisions, ruling that omissions made in the examination-in-chief can be cured in the witness's cross-examination. 

What was the Background of K. S. Dinachandran v. Shyla Joseph & Ors. (2025) Case? 

• The dispute arose over the genuineness of a Will executed by the testator, contested by his daughter Shyla Joseph (respondent), who was excluded from inheritance. 
• The testator's daughter claimed the Will was unauthentic due to defective attestation proof. 
• Only one attesting witness (DW-2) survived for trial; the other had died. 
• In DW-2's examination-in-chief, he failed to explicitly state that he saw the other attesting witness (Xavier) sign the Will. 
• Trial Court and Kerala High Court accepted this as an "incurable defect," ruling the Will unproved under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. 
• The propounders (testator's other children) appealed to the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Supreme Court, in a judgment authored by Justice K. Vinod Chandran, held that the omission in examination-in-chief was cured during cross-examination by the plaintiff's own counsel. 
• The bench clarified: "If we look at the examination-in-chief alone, it cannot be said that there was proof of the other witness having put his signature... However, this missing piece was supplied in cross-examination." 
• The Court affirmed DW-2's testimony on the testator's sound testamentary capacity, rejecting challenges to his physical condition. 
• Regarding exclusion of one daughter, the Court applied the "rule of prudence" but held it satisfied judicial conscience, as exclusion was limited and reasoned by the testator. 
• "The Court could neither place itself in the position of the testator nor supplant his reasoning with its own notions of fairness," it emphasized, directing courts to examine from the "armchair of the testator." 
• The appeal was allowed, declaring the Will validly proved. 

What are the Legal Provisions Related to Examination of Witnesses? 

About: 

• The examination process extracts truth and relevant points from witnesses through three stages: examination-in-chief, cross-examination, and re-examination 
• Governed by Chapter 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) and Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) 

Examination-in-Chief: 

• Legal provisions: Section 137 of IEA and Section 142 of BSA. 
• Definition: Examination of a witness by the party who calls them; first step of examination. 
• Process: Witness elaborates facts and circumstances of the case based on their knowledge. 
• Conducted by: The witness's own advocate or party. 
• Status: Part of judicial proceedings. 

Cross-Examination: 

• Legal provisions: Section 137 of IEA and Section 142 of BSA. 
• Definition: Interrogation of a witness by the adverse party. 
• Purpose: To test the credibility of the witness after examination-in-chief. 
• Conducted by: The opposing party's advocate. 
• Status: Essential part of judicial proceedings. 

Document Production During Cross-Examination: 

• Legal provisions: Section 139 of IEA and Section 144 of BSA. 
• Process: Witnesses can be summoned to produce documents during cross-examination. 
• Limitation: A person summoned only to produce documents cannot be cross-examined unless specifically called as a witness. 

Permissible Questions in Cross-Examination: 

• Subject matter and character: Questions regarding the witness's character are allowed (Section 140 of IEA; Section 145 of BSA). 
• Leading questions: Permitted during cross-examination (Section 143 of IEA; Section 146 of BSA) - these questions suggest their own answers. 

Re-Examination: 

• Legal provisions: Section 137 of IEA and Section 142 of BSA. 
• Definition: Third and final step where the party conducts examination after cross-examination. 
• Scope: Questions should relate to matters arising from cross-examination. 
• New questions: If new matters arise, they are subject to cross-examination with court permission. 
• Status: Not an essential part of judicial proceedings.