Examination of a witness is considered to be incomplete if he has not been cross-examined. Therefore, if a witness dies after completion of his examination-in-chief, but before he could be cross-examined, his evidence remains incomplete.
Now, what is the evidentiary value of his incomplete testimony in court? Should it be completely discarded?
In this regard, most judgments of the superior courts hold that the evidence of such witness cannot be rejected as inadmissible, however, such evidence untested by cross-examination can have little value. The evidence of a witness in these circumstances is admissible but the Judge who is dealing with it must decide for himself whether he believes the facts stated or does not believe them, since such evidence is untested in cross-examination.
The Supreme Court has also held that “it would not be safe to rely on the examination-in-chief recorded which was not subjected to cross-examination” [Gopal Saran v. Satyanarayana, (1989) 3 SCC 56 : AIR 1989 SC 1141.]
But, at the same time, as mentioned above, the courts are generally of the view that such evidence is not inadmissible but it should be viewed cautiously and little value can generally be attached to such evidence.
Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.
.
