Whether Suggestions Made By Defence Counsel To Witnesses In Cross-Examination If Incriminating Binds Accused?

We are of the view from the aforesaid that the suggestions put by the defence counsel in the cross-examination of the eyewitnesses establishes the presence of PW 1 Asgar Shaikh at the scene of offence and the factum of assault could also be said to have been admitted. The reply to the suggestions answers the submission canvassed by the learned Counsel for the Appellants that PW1 Asgar Shaikh should not be believed or relied upon as there is nothing on record to indicate that he was an injured eyewitness. The defence could be said to have admitted the presence of PW Asgar Shaikh. When the aforesaid part of the cross-examination of PW1 Asgar Shaikh was brought to the notice of the defence counsel, he submitted that a suggestion put by defence counsel to a witness in his cross-examination has no evidentiary value and even if the same is incriminating in any manner would not bind the Accused as the defence counsel has no implied authority to admit the guilt of the facts incriminating the Accused. {Para 33}

34. According to the learned Counsel such suggestions could be a part of the defence strategy to impeach the credibility of the witness. The proof of guilt required of the prosecution does not depend on the satisfaction made to a witness.

38. Thus, from the above it is evident that the suggestion made by the defence counsel to a witness in the cross-examination if found to be incriminating in nature in any manner would definitely bind the Accused and the Accused cannot get away on the plea that his counsel had no implied authority to make suggestions in the nature of admissions against his client.

39. Any concession or admission of a fact by a defence counsel would definitely be binding on his client, except the concession on the point of law. As a legal proposition we cannot agree with the submission canvassed on behalf of the Appellants that an answer by a witness to a suggestion made by the defence counsel in the cross-examination does not deserve any value or utility if it incriminates the Accused in any manner.

40. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the initial burden to establish the case against the Accused beyond reasonable doubt rests on the prosecution. It is also an elementary principle of law that the prosecution has to prove its case on its own legs and cannot derive advantage or benefit from the weakness of the defence. We are not suggesting for a moment that if prosecution is unable to prove its case on its own legs then the Court can still convict an Accused on the strength of the evidence in the form of reply to the suggestions made by the defence counsel to a witness. Take for instance, in the present case we have reached to the conclusion that the evidence of the three eyewitnesses inspires confidence and there is nothing in their evidence on the basis of which it could be said that they are unreliable witnesses. Having reached to such a conclusion, in our opinion, to fortify our view we can definitely look into the suggestions made by the defence counsel to the eyewitnesses, the reply to those establishing the presence of the Accused persons as well as the eyewitnesses in the night hours. To put it in other words, suggestions by itself are not sufficient to hold the Accused guilty if they are incriminating in any manner or are in the form of admission in the absence of any other reliable evidence on record. It is true that a suggestion has no evidentiary value but this proposition of law would not hold good at all times and in a given case during the course of cross-examination the defence counsel may put such a suggestion the answer to which may directly go against the Accused and this is exactly what has happened in the present case.

41. The principle of law that in a criminal case, a lawyer has no implied authority to make admissions against his client during the progress of the trial would hold good only in cases where dispensation of proof by the prosecution is not permissible in law. For example, it is obligatory on the part of the prosecution to prove the post mortem report by examining the doctor. The Accused cannot admit the contents of the post mortem report thereby absolving the prosecution from its duty to prove the contents of the same in accordance with law by examining the doctor. This is so because if the evidence per se is inadmissible in law then a defence counsel has no authority to make it admissible with his consent.

42. Therefore, we are of the opinion that suggestions made to the witness by the defence counsel and the reply to such suggestions would definitely form part of the evidence and can be relied upon by the Court along with other evidence on record to determine the guilt of the Accused.

44. During the course of cross-examination with a view to discredit the witness or to establish the defence on preponderance of probabilities suggestions are hurled on the witness but if such suggestions, the answer to those incriminate the Accused in any manner then the same would definitely be binding and could be taken into consideration along with other evidence on record in support of the same.

45. However, it would all depend upon the nature of the suggestions and with what idea in mind such suggestions are made to the witness. Take for instance in case of a charge of rape Under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, the statement of the Accused contained plain denial and a plea of false implication, a subsequent suggestion by the defence lawyer to the prosecutrix about consent on her part would not, by itself, amount to admission of guilt on behalf of the Accused. In cases of rape, it is permissible for the Accused to take more than one defence. In such type of cases a suggestion thrown by the defence counsel to a prosecution witness would not amount to an admission on the part of the Accused. At the same time, if the defence in the cross examination of the prosecutrix, with a view to support their alternative case of consent procure answers to the questions in the form of suggestions implicating the Accused for the offence of rape then such suggestions would definitely lend assurance to the prosecution case and the Court would be well justified in considering the same. We may give one more example of a case where the Accused would plead right of a private defence. Such a defence is always available to the Accused but although if such a defence is not taken specifically during the course of trial yet if the evidence on record suggests that the Accused had inflicted injuries on the deceased in exercise of his right of private defence then the Court can definitely take into consideration such defence in determining the guilt of the Accused. However, if a specific question is put to a witness by way of a suggestion indicative of exercise of right of private defence then the Court would well be justified in taking into consideration such suggestion and if the presence of the Accused is established the same would definitely be admissible in evidence. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1910 of 2010

Decided On: 29.03.2023

 Balu Sudam Khalde and Ors.  Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sudhanshu Dhulia and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ.

Dated: MANU/SC/0328/2023,2023 SCCONLINE SC 355

Author: J.B. Pardiwala, J.

Print Page

Under which circumstances the court can convict the accused based on the suggestion given by his Advocate to prosecution witnesses?

 Thus, from the above it is evident that the suggestion made by the defence counsel to a witness in the cross-examination if found to be incriminating in nature in any manner would definitely bind the accused and the accused cannot get away on the plea that his counsel had no implied authority to make suggestions in the nature of admissions against his client. 

{Para 38}

39. Any concession or admission of a fact by a defence counsel would definitely be binding on his client, except the concession on the point of law. As a legal proposition we cannot agree with the submission canvassed on behalf of the appellants that an answer by a witness to a suggestion made by the defence counsel in the cross-examination does not deserve any value or utility if it incriminates the accused in any manner.

40. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the initial burden to establish the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt rests on the prosecution. It is also an elementary principle of law that the prosecution has to prove its case on its own legs and cannot derive advantage or benefit from the weakness of the defence. We are not suggesting for a moment that if prosecution is unable to prove its case on its own legs then the Court can still convict an accused on the strength of the evidence in the form of reply to the suggestions made by the defence counsel to a witness. Take for instance, in the present case we have reached to the conclusion that the evidence of the three eyewitnesses inspires confidence and there is nothing in their evidence on the basis of which it could be said that they are unreliable witnesses. Having reached to such a conclusion, in our opinion, to fortify our view we can definitely look into the suggestions made by the defence counsel to the eyewitnesses, the reply to those establishing the presence of the accused persons as well as the eyewitnesses in the night hours. To put it in other words, suggestions by itself are not sufficient to hold the accused guilty if they are incriminating in any manner or are in the form of admission in the absence of any other reliable evidence on record. It is true that a suggestion has no evidentiary value but this proposition of law would not hold good at all times and in a given case during the course of cross-examination the defence counsel may put such a suggestion the answer to which may directly go against the accused and this is exactly what has happened in the present case.

41. The principle of law that in a criminal case, a lawyer has no implied authority to make admissions against his client during the progress of the trial would hold good only in cases where dispensation of proof by the prosecution is not permissible in law. For example, it is obligatory on the part of the prosecution to prove the post mortem report by examining the doctor. The accused cannot admit the contents of the post mortem report thereby absolving the prosecution from its duty to prove the contents of the same in accordance with law by examining the doctor. This is so because if the evidence per se is inadmissible in law then a defence counsel has no authority to make it admissible with his consent.

42. Therefore, we are of the opinion that suggestions made to the witness by the defence counsel and the reply to such suggestions would definitely form part of the evidence and can be relied upon by the Court along with other evidence on record to determine the guilt of the accused.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1910 OF 2010

BALU SUDAM KHALDE AND ANOTHER Vs

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Author: J.B. PARDIWALA, J.:

MARCH 29, 2023.

Print Page

Whether a suggestion thrown by the defence counsel to a prosecution witness, amounts to an admission on the part of the accused?

 The submission made by the learned counsel deserves consideration. The learned counsel is right when he says that major position (portion) of trial Court's discussion is devoted to the suggestions made by the defence counsel in cross-examination. But before considering the defence-stand and the evidence in support thereof, it is essential for the court to reach a conclusion and record a positive finding about the proof of the prosecution case. The falsity of a suggestion, as in the instant case-consent thrown to a witness would not by itself prove the prosecution case and the guilt of the accused, though in a given case, depending on circumstances, it may be an additional circumstances along with other duly established and proved circumstances against the accused. Since it was suggested to the prosecutrix Surli in her cross-examination that the act was committed with her consent, what the trial Court appears to have done is sharing with assumption of proof of rape and negativing consent convicted the appellant. This aproach, considering the defence plea first, before dealing with the prosecution evidence and reaching a conclusion based thereon is completely wrong. What is its effect is another matter but such an approach on the part of the trial Court cannot be approved of as it does not augur well with well established and well-recognised concepts of criminal jurisprudence.

Whether a suggestion thrown by the defence counsel to a prosecution witness, amounts to an admission on the part of the accused is a crucial question which requires consideration. It is a common practice to suggest to a witness while he or she is under cross-examination, the case of the defence when such evidence or suggestion is denied, it does not constitute any evidence. Suggestions put. are no evidence at all against the accused and on the basis of such suggestion no interference can be drawn against the accused that he admitted the fact suggested in the cross-examination as has been erroneously done by the learned Judge of the trial Court in the instant case. The proof of guilty required of the prosecution does not depend on the suggestion thrown to a witness.

15. On the basis of mere suggestion about consent thrown to the prosecutrix, the learned Judge of the trial Court has virtually dispensed with proof of offence of rape. An accused, as has been discussed above, is not bound by such a situation or implied admission made by the counsel.

19. In criminal cases a suggestion thrown to a prosecution witness under cross-examination by defence counsel cannot be used as an implied admission so as to dispense with proof of the prosecution case. It is only the plea of guilty, pleaded by an accused which can relieve the prosecution of its burden of proof. The learned Judge of the trial Court contrary to these settled principles of criminal jurisprudence has acted upon the suggestion made to the prosecutrix, about her being consenting party to the act.

28. In view of the infirmities pointed above, and the erroneous approach of the trial Court, in construing the suggestion as an implied admission, on the part of the accused, the conviction as recorded by it, circumstance of quick-sand, it is liable to be set aside.

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Sakariya vs State Of M.P. on 16 March, 1989

Print Page

What are parameters for appreciating the evidence of chance witness?

 Learned counsel Shri Ghanekar branded this witness as a

chance witness. He argued that this witness could not account for his presence at the spot of the incident. According to learned counsel Shri Ghanekar, the evidence of chance witness is a weak type of evidence and reliance cannot be placed on it. The Honourable Supreme Court, in the case of Sachchey Lal Tiwari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2004) 11 Supreme Court Cases 410 has held as under:-

7. Coming to the plea of the accused that PW

2 was a “chance witness” who has not explained

how he happened to be at the alleged place of

occurrence it has to be noted that the said witness

was independent witness. There was not even a

suggestion to the witness that he had any

animosity towards any of the accused. In a

murder trial by describing an independent

witness as “chance witness” it cannot be implied

thereby that his evidence is suspicious and his

presence at the scene doubtful. Murders are not

committed with previous notice to witnesses –

soliciting their presence. If murder is committed

in a dwelling house, the inmates of the house are

natural witnesses. If murder is committed in a

street, only passers-by will be witnesses. Their

evidence cannot be brushed aside or viewed with

suspicion on the ground that they are mere

“chance witnesses”. The expression “chance

witness” is borrowed from countries where every

man’s home is considered his castle and everyone

must have an explanation for his presence

elsewhere or in another man’s castle. It is quite

unsuitable an expression in a country where

people are less formal and more casual, at any

rate in the matter of explaining their presence.

The courts below have scanned the evidence of

PW 2 in great detail and found it to be reliable.

We find no reason to differ.

Even if it is accepted for the sake of argument that this

witness is a chance witness, still the evidence of chance witness cannot be discarded simply he being a chance witness. If his testimony is otherwise trustworthy, the Court can place reliance on it. This witness has assigned reason for his presence at the spot of the incident. He was plying auto rickshaw and owing to a mechanical defect, he had brought his auto rickshaw to Ladke garage and had parked it infront of the said garage. Therefore, this witness has explained his presence at the spot of the incident. His testimony is trustworthy. Nothing adverse to the prosecution could be extracted from this witness.{Para 46}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 268 OF 2014

 Shyamsundar Vithal Pawle Vs The State of Maharashtra 

Print Page

Whether suggestions given by Advocate for accused to prosecution witnesses is binding on accused?

 A Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Koli Trikam Jivraj & Another Vs. The State of Gujarat, AIR 1969 Gujarat 69 has held that suggestions put in cross-examination are no evidence. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:- ―15. To put it shortly Mr. Nanavati in advancing this argument merely repeated the main ground on which the conviction of the appellants was based by the learned Sessions Judge viz., that the accused no. 1 and accused no. 2 admitted their presence at the scene of the offence and that they were beaten by Dharamshi and Talshi. If the lawyer of the accused puts a suggestion to a prosecution witness that a particular event happened, or happened in a particular manner, then it cannot be implied that the lawyer commits himself to such an assertion. Suggestions put in cross-examination are no evidence at all and on the basis of such suggestions no inference can be drawn against the accused that he admitted the facts referred to in the suggestions. It is possible that in putting suggestions the lawyer of the accused, if he thinks fit and proper, may not put the entire case of the accused in the cross examination of a prosecution witness.

16. Moreover the lawyer who appears for the accused keeping in mind the facts of the case that he defends, has the right to take up a defence that he thinks just and proper. In Nga Ba Sein v. Emperor, 37 Cri LJ 293 : (AIR 1936 Rang 1), the facts were that the accused was charged for committing murder of his brother-in-law. The defence taken by the accused was that he had not caused the injury. In the Sessions Court the lawyer appearing for the accused openly advised his client to admit the assault and plead the right of private defence but the accused was stubborn and persisted in denying altogether his liability in the crime. The learned Sessions Judge did not allow the lawyer to take up the plea of right of self-defence and the High Court hearing the appeal observed:— ―Moreover, in this particular case it is not correct to say that the right of self-defence was not pleaded. It was pleaded by the pleader who was appearing for the appellant and if the pleader of the accused cannot set up a defence on his behalf, then I would ask what is the use of his appearing at the trial at all. The accused himself may on his own behalf take up a line of defence but it is equally open to his pleader on his behalf to take up another and alternative line of defence.‖ Therefore, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the plea set up by the lawyer but it cannot be said that the plea or defence which his lawyer puts forward must bind the accused. The reason is that in a criminal case a lawyer appears to defend the accused and has no implied authority to make admissions against his client during the progress of the litigation either for the purpose of dispensing with proof at the trial or incidentally as to any facts of the case. See Phipson's Manual of Evidence, Eighth Edition Page 134. It is, therefore, evident that the role that a defence lawyer plays in a criminal trial is that of assisting the accused in defending his case. The lawyer has no implied authority to admit the guilt or facts incriminating the accused. The argument of Mr. Nanavati that suggestion put by the lawyer of the accused in the cross-examinations of the prosecution witnesses amounts to an admission under Section 18 of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be accepted.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 

CRL.A. 901/2018 

SUBHASH Vs STATE 

Date of Decision: 08th May, 2020 

CORAM:  MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL

MANMOHAN, J:

Print Page

Whether it is necessary to give suggestion in cross examination in Civil proceeding?

As far as the argument of suggestion having not been given to PW2 is concerned, I may mention that the tenor of the entire cross examination by the respondent of PW2 is to challenge his statement; though of course no specific suggestion is given that he has lied on the aspect of payment of Rs. 4,25,000/- in cash in his presence. However, I am of the opinion that in a civil trial which is based on pleadings, there is no need for such suggestions to be given. The respondent in his written statement had already denied the said payment and it was for the appellant to prove the same. The practice of giving suggestions in cross examination to witnesses is of criminal trials where there are no pleadings and the defence is built up by giving such suggestions. However unfortunately the said practice of criminal trials has crept into the civil trials also to the extent that most of the cross examinations being in the form of suggestions alone and which take considerable time. The purport of cross examination is to challenge the testimony and/or to falsify the witness or his credit worthiness and not to give suggestions to the effect that each and every deposition in examination-in-chief is false. Similarly, a party in a civil trial is not required to in cross examination put its case to the witness as the same as aforesaid already exists in the pleadings.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

RFA 205/2004

Decided On: 10.07.2013

Sher Mohammad Vs. Mohan Magotra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

Citation: 2013 SCC OnLine Del 2530.

Print Page

Whether Suggestions in cross examination have evidentiary value?

Let me at this stage take a note of one very important aspect. The plaintiffs could be said to have satisfactorily discharged the burden open it for proving the issue No. 2 in the affirmative. The plaintiff in her cross examination-in-chief has stated as to the rash and negligent manner in which the firing was opened by the Army and how the same led to death of her husband. She has made out a case of wrongful deprivation of the life of the deceased resulting into consequence of liability on the part of the State to pay the compensation. The point, I would like to take note of, is that except putting suggestions in the cross examination, the defendants have not been able to discern anything from the evidence of the plaintiff on the strength of which the issue No. 4 could have been in the affirmative. It is a settled position of law that mere suggestions are not sufficient to dislodge or disprove the case of the plaintiff. Suggestions in cross examination have no evidentiary value. In absence of any evidence, nor any material traced in the cross-examination in support thereof, the findings so far could not have been answered in the affirmative by the Trial Court as well as by this Court in the First Appeal.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

Letters Patent Appeal No. 473 of 1996 in First Appeal No. 5952 of 1995

Decided On: 04.08.2017

Umedmiya R. Rathod and Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat

Print Page

Whether suggestion made in cross examination can be treated as admission?

The interrogatories would suggest that the marriage had taken place in that year 1955. It may be before May or after May, 1955, nothing is clinching. Adverting to the suggestion put in the course of cross-examination to the respondent by the Counsel for the petitioner, it is so obvious that he had not taken instructions from the petitioner. The petitioner in her evidence has clearly stated that she did not remember as to when the marriage took place. It is for that reason that the date of marriage was not obviously mentioned in the petition nor in the reply statement filed by the Counsel for the petitioner. All of a sudden, however, in the course of cross-examination of the respondent, the counsel has put a random suggestion whether the marriage had not taken place in the year N57. It is obvious from reading the evidence of the petitioner and the interrogatories that this suggestion eminates from the lawyer and was not rooted in the knowledge of the petitioner. Therefore, no evidentiary value can be attached. Besides a mere suggestion made and denied is not evidence at all.

Karnataka High Court

Parameshwari Bai vs Muthojirao Scindia on 29 July, 1980

Equivalent citations: AIR 1981 Kant 40, ILR 1981 KAR 78

Bench: G Sabhahit, D V Rao

Print Page

Whether suggestion put by defence counsel to prosecution witness can be treated as admission of that fact by defence side?

In impugned judgment in paragraph 37, Trial Court relies upon Tarun Bora v. State of Assam, (MANU/SC/0675/2002 : (2002) 7 SCC 39), to note that suggestion of the defence can act as admission of fact suggested. Paragraph 14 and 15 of the Apex Court ruling shows that the appellant had identified accused Tarun Bora and he stated in para 16 that "Accused Tarun Bora did not blind my eyes nor he assaulted me." Hon'ble Apex Court observed that said part of cross-examination is suggestive of the presence of accused Tarun Bora in the whole episode and it clearly suggest the presence of the accused Tarun Bora as admitted. The only denial was held to be that the accused did not participate in blindfolding the eyes of the witness nor assaulted him. Next judgment looked into by the Trial Court is State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash, (MANU/SC/7788/2007 : (2007) 12 SCC 381) : (2007 ALL MR (Cri) 2080 (S.C.)), in para 12 Hon'ble Apex Court notes the suggestion put in cross-examination which was - "Today I do not remember whether the accused had inflicted the said katari obliquely or straight". Hon'ble Apex Court states that the essence of the question appeared to be that though the accused had given the katariblow, the witness did not remember whether it was inflicted obliquely or straight. Hon'ble Court also holds that this by itself may not be sufficient to fasten the guilt on the accused, but was certainly a relevant factor.

79. Thus, none of these judgments lay down that due to such suggestion, the substantive defence of accused gets eclipsed. Such suggestions as also answers thereto call for an independent evaluation of its impact on whole defence, if it can be viewed as a relevant suggestion made with an intention to dilute or to relinquish the defense. We feel that roving cross-examination of prosecution witness by an advocate in an attempt to fish out whatever possible in favour of his client can not be always construed as an admission of the fact about which such suggestion was given.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Criminal Appeal Nos. 201, 413 and 463 of 2010

Decided On: 01.08.2014

Appellants: Vijay and Ors.
Vs.
Respondent: The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:B.P. Dharmadhikari and C.V. Bhadang, JJ.

Citation: 2015ALLMR(Cri)180

Read whole judgment here; click here

Print Page

Whether mere suggestion not supported by any specific evidence has evidentiary value?

SUGGESTION:

65. The word, 'suggestion', in common parlance, as found regularly in the procedure of the Court, means that a fact has been suggested to a witness either inviting his admission or denial on that fact during his cross-examination. Though scope of 'suggestion' is not found in any statute, especially, in the law of evidence, yet it is a time honoured practice of courts that the lawyers or the party himself, while cross-examining a witness, either in the form of offering a denial to the facts deposed to by that witness or to place a new fact into the mouth of a witness to test whether he admits the same or not, suggests a fact or puts a suggestion of fact or facts to the witness. A mere suggestion, if not supported by any specific evidence, has no evidentiary value. We may gainfully refer here to the observations made by a Division Bench of this Court in The State Vs. Md. Misir Ali & Ors, reported in MANU/GH/0005/1963 : AIR 1963 Ass 151, wherein it has been observed, at paragraph 9, as follows:

Mere suggestions not supported by any specific statements made by accused person and not supported by any defence evidence would have no evidentiary value. No importance could be attached to the above suggestions made during cross-examination of PWs. 1 and 3 in this case....

66. The Division Bench of Patna High Court, in Sitaram Pandey & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar, reported in MANU/BH/0169/1974 : 1976 CRI LJ 800, has also expressed the similar view.

2012(5)GLT209;2013 CR L J(NOC)67 gauhati

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (AGARTALA BENCH)

Crl. Ref. Nos. 02 and 94 of 2005

Decided On: 05.09.2012

ApeState of Tripura  Vs. Ashok Debbarma @ Achak Debbar ma & Anr.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Iqbal Ahmed Ansari and Swapan Chandra Das, JJ.

Print Page

Whether Suggestions in cross-examination have evidentiary value?

 Shri Joshi argued that the Doctor ought to have made it clear as to from where and when anticoagulant and preservative were brought and at what place that substances were preserved. Looking to Rule 4, no such requirement is necessary. Once he says that he had prepared the phial with anticoagulant and preservative, then Rule 4 is substantially complied with. Only a suggestion was put in the cross-examination that he did not personally add the anticoagulant and preservative in the phial. That suggestion has been denied by the Doctor. In cross-examination, more than one suggestions were put to which the Doctor has denied. In case of KHIMJIBHAI KURJIBHAI vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT, reported in 1982 Cr.L.R. (Guj), P. 381, it has been held that

" Suggestion in cross-examination are no evidence. This proposition of law is good both in the case of the prosecution and the defence. Mere hurling of some such suggestions which are denied, can hardly take the place of proof or evidence. The Law of Evidence is alike both for the prosecution and for the defence. If the accused wants to establish a certain fact, he has to lead evidence on that score. Such suspicion cannot have any place in the realm of appreciation of evidence. We reiterate that a suggestion denied by a witness remains only a suggestion and has no evidentiary value at all".

Gujarat High Court

Avadh Bihari Amrutlal vs State Of Gujarat on 11 August, 2000

Equivalent citations: (2000) 3 GLR 506

Print Page