Cross-examination is one of the most important parts of trial advocacy. It gives you an opportunity to test a witness’s version, expose inconsistencies, establish admissions, and challenge credibility. But there is another side to it: a poorly framed question can give the witness an opportunity to explain, clarify, or introduce facts that strengthen their testimony.
That is why good cross-examination is not simply about asking difficult questions. You must know what to ask, what not to ask, and when to stop.
For lawyers and law students in India, this skill is especially important because the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) now governs the law of evidence and has been in force since July 1, 2024. The BSA expressly permits leading questions during cross-examination, but it also places limits on questions involving character, irrelevant matters, indecent or scandalous subjects, and questions intended to insult or annoy.
One clarification is important before we begin. The word “never” in this article means questions you should generally avoid unless there is a clear tactical reason to ask them. These are not seven questions that are automatically illegal in every proceeding.
Why Does the Wording of a Cross-Examination Question Matter?
The way you frame a question can influence who controls the evidence that comes out of the witness box.
Under Section 143 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, cross-examination is conducted by the adverse party, and unlike examination-in-chief, it need not be confined to the facts stated during examination-in-chief, although both examination-in-chief and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts. Section 146 expressly permits leading questions in cross-examination.
This means you have considerable room to test a witness. But having that freedom does not mean every question is strategically useful.
Your objective should generally be to obtain a specific admission, expose a contradiction, test the witness’s ability to perceive or remember something, or establish another fact relevant to your case. A question that allows the witness to deliver a long explanation may move you away from that objective.
The Supreme Court has also recognised the importance of properly conducted cross-examination. In a 2024 judgment, the Court noted that important questions which could have been put in cross-examination were not asked in the case before it.
Before preparing your questions, it can also help to strengthen your case-reading skills. A structured approach to how to analyse a judgement for legal research can help you identify the factual contradictions and legal issues that actually matter before you enter the courtroom.
Which Questions Should You Generally Avoid During Cross-Examination?
The following questions are risky because of the opportunities they may create for the witness. Your facts and case theory should always determine whether a particular question is appropriate.
1. “Why Are You Lying?”
This is one of the most tempting questions to ask when you believe the witness is giving false testimony.
The problem is that it is usually open-ended. Instead of forcing the witness to answer a specific factual proposition, you may give them an opportunity to explain their conduct, justify their testimony, repeat their version of events, or blame circumstances for inconsistencies.
Suppose a witness gave one version in an earlier statement and a different version in court. Asking, “Why are you lying?” may produce a lengthy explanation.
A more controlled approach would be to take the witness through the relevant statement and the inconsistency. Section 148 of the BSA permits cross-examination about previous statements in writing, and where you intend to contradict the witness using the writing, the witness’s attention must first be drawn to the relevant parts.
The focus should therefore be on what the witness previously said, not merely on asking the witness to admit that they are dishonest.
2. “Isn’t It True That…?” When You Do Not Know the Answer
Leading questions are permitted during cross-examination under Section 146 of the BSA.
So the problem is not the phrase “isn’t it true?” itself.
The problem arises when you use a leading question without understanding where the witness’s answer could take you.
For example:
“Isn’t it true that you saw the accused at the location at 9 p.m.?”
If the witness says, “Yes,” you may obtain a useful admission. But what happens if the witness says, “No, because I actually saw him at 8 p.m. and stayed with him for the next hour”?
You may have just opened the door to facts that were not part of your planned cross-examination.
Before putting a proposition to a witness, ask yourself whether you can deal with both the expected answer and the reasonably possible alternative answer.
3. “Can You Explain Why…?”
Questions beginning with “why” can be dangerous during cross-examination because they invite explanation.
For example:
“Can you explain why you did not mention this fact earlier?”
The witness may now provide a detailed narrative concerning memory, circumstances, pressure, misunderstanding, or any other explanation that supports their evidence.
There are occasions when an explanation is exactly what you need. But if your purpose is to establish a contradiction, you should be careful about giving the witness unnecessary space before you have completed the factual sequence.
A practical rule is simple: ask the smallest question necessary to establish the point.
Cross-examination becomes much easier when you prepare it around facts rather than arguments. You may find it useful to review this guide on how to extract legal principles from case laws while preparing the legal propositions you need to establish.
4. “You Were There, Right?”
This sounds harmless because it is often framed as a simple confirmation.
But ask yourself: what exactly are you trying to prove by asking it?
A witness confirming their presence at a location may go on to provide additional details about what they saw, heard, or understood. If you only need to establish that the witness could not have observed a particular event from their position, you may need to break that proposition into narrower questions dealing with distance, visibility, timing, obstruction, or the witness’s position.
Remember that leading questions are permitted in cross-examination. Therefore, the issue is not whether this question is legally permissible in the abstract. The issue is whether it advances your case without unnecessarily opening a wider line of testimony.
5. “What Happened Next?”
This question is almost an invitation to narrate.
Imagine that you have just established a useful fact. You then ask:
“What happened next?”
You have handed the witness an opportunity to tell the court the next part of the story in their own words.
The answer may contain additional explanations, facts, documents, conversations, or circumstances that you were not planning to address.
This does not mean an advocate can never ask what happened next. There may be situations where chronology itself is central to the case. But where the witness has already given an account that you are trying to test, broad questions can reduce your control over the sequence.
A better technique is to divide the sequence into specific factual propositions and ask only about the matters you need to establish.
6. “You’re Sure About That?”
This question is often asked when a witness gives an answer that the lawyer considers questionable.
But repeated challenges without a clear purpose can become counterproductive.
Suppose a witness says:
“I saw the accused clearly.”
You ask:
“You’re sure about that?”
The witness responds:
“Absolutely. I have no doubt. I was standing only a few feet away and there was sufficient light.”
You may have unintentionally allowed the witness to strengthen the original statement.
Instead, identify the factual basis for the claimed certainty. You might need to establish the lighting, distance, duration of observation, obstruction, stress, time elapsed, or whether the witness had previously described the circumstances differently.
The objective is not simply to make the witness repeat that they are confident. It is to test the basis of that confidence.
7. “Is There Anything Else You Want to Add?”
This may be the most avoidable question on the list.
Once you have reached the point of your cross-examination, asking the witness whether they want to add anything gives them an open invitation to clarify, explain, correct, or introduce new information.
Your cross-examination does not have to end with an invitation to continue.
Under the BSA, re-examination is directed toward explaining matters referred to in cross-examination, and new matter may be introduced with the permission of the Court.
The practical lesson is that you should know when your objective has been achieved. Once you have obtained the necessary admission or established the contradiction, another unnecessary question may create more risk than value.
How Can You Replace These Risky Questions With Better Ones?
The answer is not to make every question aggressive. Instead, make every question purposeful.
Can You Use Specific, Controlled Questions?
Break a broad issue into smaller factual propositions.
Instead of:
“Can you explain why you were there?”
consider whether you need to establish:
“You reached the location at approximately 8 p.m., correct?”
“You were standing outside the building?”
“The incident occurred inside the room?”
“There was a wall between your position and the room?”
The exact questions will depend on the evidence, but the method is the same. Control the sequence through precise questions.
Should You Prepare the Expected Answer?
Before asking an important question, consider:
What answer do I expect?
What answer could I receive instead?
If the witness gives the alternative answer, can I prove or challenge it?
This is especially important when your question deals with a document, previous statement, date, timing, identification, or another fact that can change the direction of the examination.
The BSA permits cross-examination concerning relevant previous written statements, subject to the requirement that the witness’s attention be drawn to the relevant portions when the statement is being used for contradiction.
Should You Avoid Personal Attacks?
Not every credibility challenge needs to become an attack on the witness’s character.
Sections 149 to 153 of the BSA regulate questions relating to credibility and character. Where a character-based question concerns an irrelevant matter, the Court has discretion over whether the witness should be compelled to answer. Section 152 states that such questions should not be asked without reasonable grounds, and the Court may report an advocate who asks such a question without reasonable grounds.
The BSA also requires the Court to forbid questions intended to insult or annoy, or questions that are needlessly offensive in form.
So, when you challenge credibility, connect the question to a legitimate evidentiary purpose rather than simply trying to embarrass the witness.
Does This Change in Cases Involving Sexual Offences?
Yes. There are specific restrictions that you must know.
Section 149 of the BSA provides that, in prosecutions for specified sexual offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, where consent is an issue, it is not permissible to adduce evidence or put questions in cross-examination concerning the victim’s general immoral character or previous sexual experience with any person for proving consent or the quality of consent.
This is a good reminder that cross-examination strategy must always be considered alongside the specific statutory framework governing the case.
What Should You Check Before Starting Your Cross-Examination?
Before you begin questioning, take a few minutes to identify the purpose of each major line of questioning.
Ask yourself:
- What fact am I trying to establish?
- What admission do I need?
- What part of the testimony is inconsistent?
- What document or prior statement supports my challenge?
- What answer could harm my case?
- Do I have evidence to support the question?
- Once I achieve the objective, should I stop?
Preparation matters because effective cross-examination often begins long before the witness enters the courtroom. Your understanding of the pleadings, evidence, previous statements, documents, and applicable law determines whether your questions are meaningful.
For a broader approach to building practical legal skills, you can also explore LawMento’s resources on legal research and writing, particularly when you are preparing a case, analysing authorities, or developing a litigation strategy.
What Should You Remember Before Your Next Cross-Examination?
Good cross-examination is not about asking the witness every question that comes to your mind. It is about asking questions that serve a clear evidentiary purpose.
The seven questions discussed above are worth treating as warning signs:
“Why are you lying?”
“Isn’t it true that…?” when you do not know the answer.
“Can you explain why…?”
“You were there, right?”
“What happened next?”
“You’re sure about that?”
“Is there anything else you want to add?”
None of these phrases is automatically forbidden in every case. Their risk depends on the facts, evidence, purpose, and context. The better habit is to prepare questions that are precise, relevant, supported by the record, and designed to achieve a particular objective.
Most importantly, do not confuse speaking more with cross-examining better. Sometimes, once you have obtained the admission you wanted, the strongest decision is to move on.
Final Thoughts
Cross-examination is a practical skill that improves through preparation, observation and repeated practice. Learn courtroom strategy, drafting and litigation skills with LawMento’s practical courses. Enrol today and build stronger, practice-ready legal skills.
