Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010096902025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/178/2025 SMT RAKHI SAIKIA @ RAKHI SAIKIA MUKHARJEE W/O SRI KAMAL MUKHARJEE, R/O WARD NO. 11, K.B. ROAD, N.L. TOWN, P.O. AND P.S.- NORTH LAKHIMPUR, PIN CODE -787001, DIST- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM. PRESENT ADDRESS - ASSTT. TEACHER, CHUKULIBHARIA M.V. SCHOOL, P.O. AND P.S.- NORTH LAKHIMPUR, DIST- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM VERSUS SMT. KANAKLATA MUKHARJEE AND ANR W/O BATUK NATH MUKHARJEE, R/O WARD NO. 11, K.B. ROAD, N.L. TOWN, P.O. AND P.S.- NORTH LAKHIMPUR, PIN CODE -787001, DIST- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM 2:KAMAL MUKHERJEE S/O LATE BATUK NATH MUKHARJEE R/O WARD NO. 11 K.B. ROAD N.L. TOWN P.O. AND P.S.- NORTH LAKHIMPUR PIN CODE -787001 DIST- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM. PRESENT ADDRESS - C/O SRI NAREN BORA HOUSE NO. 36 SWARAJ NAGAR BYE LANE NO. 4 HENGERABARI ROAD DISPUR GUWAHATI-78103 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A SATTAR, S CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : , Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 19.05.2025 Heard Mr. A. Sattar, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has put to challenge the correctness or otherwise of the order dated 21.03.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Lakhimpur, at North Lakhimpur, in T.S. No. 01/2024. 3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 21.03.2025, the learned trial has closed the cross-examination of the P.W’s and thereby fixed the case on 23.04.2025 for evidence of official witness. 4. Mr. Sattar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of illness of the wife of the earlier counsel of the petitioner on two occasions, the witnesses could not be cross-examined by the petitioner and he has already changed the earlier counsel and he may be given only one chance to cross- examine the witnesses. 5. Having heard the submission of Mr. Sattar, learned counsel for the petitioner, I have carefully gone though the petition and the documents placed on record, and also perused the impugned order dated 21.03.2025. Page No.# 3/5 6. It appears that the learned trial Court has fixed the case for cross- examination P.W’s on 16.01.2025, 17.01.2025 and 06.03.2025. But, the petitioner herein had failed to cross-examine the witnesses. Thereafter, the learned trial Court has fixed the case on 19.03.2025 and 20.03.2025 and also imposed a cost of Rs. 1,000/- and thereafter, on account of failing to cross- examine the witness of the P.W’s the learned trial Court has closed the cross- examination and fixed the matter on 23.04.2025, for evidence of official witness. 7. But, it is also well settled that right to fair trial is a fundamental right as granted under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. And fair trial encompasses the interests of all the stakeholders of the system and it includes the grant of fair and proper opportunities to the person concerned, and the same must be ensured as this is also a human right. 8. While dealing with the importance of cross-examination, a Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case in the case of Kartar Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in (1994) 3 SCC 569, has held that Section 137 of the Indian 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: (i) to destroy or weaken the evidentiary value of the Page No.# 4/5 witness of his adversary; (ii) to elicit facts in favour of the cross-examining lawyer’s client from the mouth of the witness of the adversary party; (iii) to show that the witness is unworthy of belief by impeaching the credit of the said witness; and 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. 9. Again in the case of Jayendra Vishnu Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2009) 7 SCC 104, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that right to cross-examine a witness, apart from being a natural right is a statutory right. Section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act provides for examination-in-chief, cross-examination and re-examination. Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act confers a right on the adverse party to cross-examine a witness who had been examined in chief, subject of course to expression of his desire to the said effect. But, indisputably, such an opportunity is to be granted. 10. In the case in hand such an opportunity is denied to the petitioner and denial of such right amounts to denial of fair trial to the petitioner. 11. Taking note of above and also taking note of the submission of Mr. Sattar, learned counsel or the petitioner and also in the given facts and circumstances on the record, this Court is inclined to allow this petition. The impugned order Page No.# 5/5 dated 21.03.2025, so far it relates to closing the examination of P.W.s stand set aside and quashed. Consequently, the learned trial Court is directed to afford one opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the witness, subject however to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- before the learned trial Court on or before next date fixed. 12. In terms of above, this CRP(IO) stands closed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant