History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.299.4

v4.c63.299.4

Witnesses after they are assembled before the Court are to be ordinarily examined separately (vide Kāt. quoted in n. 508 above). But Gaut. XIII. 5 and Kāt. 394 provide⁵¹² that if a certain matter is seen by the witnesses as a body then they may be examined together. Manu VIII. 78 and Kāt. 392 prescribe that what the witnesses declare quite naturally (without hesitation and fear) should be taken down and that when the witnesses have declared (what they know) they should not be questioned again and again by the king (or judge). From the Smṛtis and the 9th Act of the Mṛcchakaṭika it appears that it was the chief judge or the judges who put questions and that there was no elaborate cross-examination and re-examination of witnesses as in England (which practice is followed in modern India). The only cross examination that appears to have been allowed was about the faults or grounds that made a person an incompetent witness. In this respect ancient Indian practice resembled modern judicial practice in some European⁵¹³ countries other than England. Witnesses were compelled to attend. Kauṭ. III. 11 states that witnesses who are not far removed by time or space should be produced by the parties themselves, but those who are far away or who are unwilling to stir shall be got summoned by order of the king⁵¹⁴. Manu VIII. 107, Yāj. II. 77, Br., Kāt. and Viṣṇu Dh. S. VIII.