In Cross examination, a party seeks to test the veracity and accuracy of evidence in chief, given by a witness called by another party for substantiating their claim and to draw out any relevant facts from that witness that may be favourable to the case for the cross examiner. Cross examination which is planned exclusively to discredit the witness and to destroy or reduce his credibility is absolutely permissible and is sometimes known as impeachment. Upon swearing, a witness is compellable to answer any proper question put in cross examination, whether it is directed to an issue in the case or to his credit as a witness. A witness may even be compelled to answer certain questions that are aimed to showing his bad character with the objective of challenging his credit as a witness. The credit of a witness is determined by the opinion which the tribunal of the fact ultimately takes of his knowledge of the facts, his impartiality, his truthfulness and his respect for oath or affirmation. Thus the other party may attack these qualities of the witness to the extent necessary to deter the tribunal from relying on the witness’s evidence. However, it is the duty of the counsel not to exceed what is required and the judge may hold back unnecessary cross-examination even where some basis for the questions can be found as a matter of law. In case of failure to cross examine a witness who has given relevant evidence for the other party is technically held to amount to an acceptance of the witness’s evidence in chief. Both matters elicited in cross examination as well as in examination in chief are governed by the rules of evidence.
