The failure of the respondents to cross examine solitary witness or confront him with their version, despite adequate opportunity must lead to an inference of tacit admission on their part. They did not suggest the witness that he was siding with the claimants . The High Court has failed to appreciate the legal effect of this absence of cross examination of a crucial witness their ission on their part.

The importance of cross-examination has been elucidated on seven occasions by this Court, including by a Constitution Bench in Kartar Singh vs State of Punjab, which laid down as follows:

278. Section 137 of the Evidence Act defines what cross-examination means and Sections 139 and 145 speak of the mode of cross examination with reference to the documents as well as oral evidence. It is the jurisprudence of law that cross- examination is an acid-test of the truthfulness of the statement made by a witness on oath in examination-in-chief, the objects of which are:

1. To destroy or weaken the evidentiary value of the witness of his adversary;
2. To elicit facts in favour of the cross-examining lawyer's client from the mouth of the witness of the adversary party;
3. To show that the witness is unworthy of belief by impeaching the credit of the said witness;

The questions to be addressed in the course of cross-examination are to test his veracity; to discover who he is and what is his position in life; and to shake his credit by injuring his character.

The identity of the witness is necessary in the normal trial of cases to achieve the above objects and the right of confrontation is one of the fundamental guarantees so that he could guard himself from being victimised by any false and invented evidence that may be tendered by the adversary party."

Relying upon Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, this Court in Sunita Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, considered the effect of not examination of the pillion rider as a witness in a claim petition filed by the deceased of the motorcyclist and held as follows:

Clearly, the evidence given by Bhagchand withstood the respondents' scrutiny and the respondents were unable to shaile his evidence. In turn, the High Court has failed to take note of the absence of cross-examination of this witness by the respondents leave alone the Tribunal's finding on the same.

End Notes:

• (1994) 3 SCC 569: 1994 Cri LJ 3139 (SC).
• (1994) 3 SCC 569: 1994 Cri LJ 3139 (SC).