True Story : In Cross Exam No question was asked to Doctor about injuries on dead body. And Result? Acquittal !
This is a true story describing that true Art of Cross Examination is about "When not to ask any questions to witness".
A woman had committed suicide. Husband and his parents were arrested for dowry death.
Since suicide was with 7 years of marriage, presumption of dowry death applied. 10 years can be jail.
Trial court had acquitted parents but had sentenced the husband after finding him guilty.
In appeal, High Court acquitted Husband also.
Now the State of Punjab had filed appeal in Supreme Court. I was defending husband.
During hearing of appeal judge pointed out from deposition of doctor that there were four injuries on dead body.
And therefore cruelty immediately before death was proved.
And worse, trial court advocate for accused did not put any question to doctor during cross . He simply refused to cross examine doctor.
Supreme Court Judges asked me, why they should not convict my client husband on 304B and send him to jail for 10 years?
I was non plused . There was no cross of doctor in trial court. This was going against my client.
I sought and adjournment to check records of case. The case was adjourned.
I called upon trial court and asked him why he had refused to cross examine doctor?
He said he had tried this case 20 years ago, and now he did not remember.
I was stuck. I checked all records of case. I read doctor's evidence again and again and tried to guess why trial court advocate could have refused to cross examine doctor about injuries.
Then the answer struck me.
The Doctor had no where stated in his deposition that "Injuries were Ante Mortem". He had never said that these injuries were inflicted on deceased prior to her death.
So this was the reason that trial court advocate may have refused to cross examine doctor.
Had he put any question to Doctor, he may have said that injuries were prior to death.
This one question and answer could have sent husband in jail for 10 years.
But now, on record of case, there remained doubt about whether injuries were prior to death or after death.
Benefit of doubt goes to accused.
I found citations which said that when there is doubt about ante mortem or postmortem of injury, conviction cannot be sustained.
In end result, husband remain acquitted. And I learned a lesson in fine art of "Knowing when Not to ask questions to witnesses."
Haresh Raichura
23/3/2014
