Examination means testified to the witness about relevancy to find out witness knowledge, confidence, so no for the subject matter. Interrogative of witness by the opposition party is called cross examination. Cross examination is also said to be ‘ the greatest engine even invented for the discovery of earth.
Cross examination is’ the questioning of a witness at a trial or hearing by the party opposed to the party who called the witness to testify.
Cross-examination ‘the most effective art of the skilled trial lawyer; the interrogative of a witness for the opposing party by questions formed to test the accuracy and truthfulness of his/her testimony on direct examination and to bring out the truth of matter in issue; an absolute rights in action and proceeding.
According to Taylor, cross-examination is ‘the motives to prevent truth are so much numerous in judicial investigation than in the ordinary affairs of life that the danger of injustice arising from this cause’
Cross-examination of the witness is the process of purity the fact from the witness of the opposite party. It does not protect the rights of the party, must have both the right and opportunity of cross-examination. Cross-examination is one of the greatest weapon of the testing the veracity of a statement made by a person. It is both, sword of attack and a side of defense.
Cross-examination is designed to serve one or more of the following purposes as
To damage or destroy the opponent,
To substantially discredit the witness,
To support one’s own the case
According to Cross and Wilkins, the objective of cross-examination on conducted or on behalf of the opposite party are
to elicit evidence directly relevant to the issued which is favorable to the cross-examiners case and
To discredit the witness.
The very purpose of the cross-examination is to ask the question regarding to what the witness has stated in the examination in –chief are in the case of that witness and particularly when the witness is a party to the proceeding of that party.The entire questions which are asked with a new challenge the evidence-in – chief are permissible .The motives to prevent truth are so much more numerous in judicial investigation than in the ordinary affairs of life and the danger of injustice arising from this cause.