Attention to be drawn to those parts of statement which contradict a witness. Mere questioning whether a particular exhibit contradicted his earlier statement is not enough. Without complying with the procedure laid down in Sec. 145, E.A. (Art. 140) the admission contained in the previous statement cannot be used as legal evidence. PLD 1966 Dac. 114. Ananta Kumar Sarkar v. Sebrate Ullah Sardar.
Witness confronted with his police statement repudiating a portion of it. Police Officer who recorded his statement should be questioned specifically with regard to that portion whether he had recorded it correctly. The practice of merely asking the police officer perfunctorily whether a particular document represented the witness's  statement as a whole is to be condemned. PLD 1959 Kar. 383 Shah Nawaz.
U/S. 145, Evidence Act i.e. Article 140 portions to which attention is drawn is evidence and no other. (DB) PLD 1964 Dac 256 Chhota Gada.
Witness to be given an opportunity to explain the discrepancy in his present and previous statement (P.C.) AIR 1915 P.C. 7 421 I.A. 135 B.G. Tilak v. Shrinivas.
Opportunity to explain the contradiction must be given to the witness before branding him as a prejudice when confronting him u/S. 145, E.A. (DB) PLD 1964 Pesh. 194 Said.
Statement u/S. 161, Cr.P.C. is not substantive evidence. It can only be used to contract a witness u/S. 145, E.A. PLD 1965 SC 188. Nazir Hussain v. Muhammad Shafi.
Confrontation u/S. 145, E.A. (now Art. 140, QS.) "I do not remember" may amount to contradiction where witness specifically made such a statement earlier. (FB) PLD 1978 Cr.C. (Lah.) 234 State v.ÿZ.A. Bhutto. PLJ 1978 Lah. 523.
Question must be understood by the witness and it is the judicial function of a judge to insist that the witness understands the question put before the answers it or before an answer is recorded. 14 Pat. 225 Harilal v. Emp.
Composite question. "Did you throw the new born child into the well as a result of which he died of drowning? a direct answer "yes" or "No" to this question is not possible. From the accused girl's answer "yes" it cannot be inferred that she admitted that child was born alive. AIR 1941 Pesh. 22 Hussain Pari v. Emperor.
Courtesy to witness. "Brow-beating" is that sort of offence which can never be committed by any advocate who has not the "Judge for his accomplice." The dignity of a Court is best maintained by the presiding ÿjudge invariably treating the witness and Courtesy and insisting on counsel doing so. SIR 1941 Pat. 362 Bokhari v. Abdul.
Cross-examination of PW by accused himself. Putting a few questions by accused himself could not be termed as cross-examination, accused entitled to resummon the PW for cross-examination after he enters on defence 1977 P.Cr.LJ 383 Muhammad Hanif.
Cross-Examination by accused himself is no substitute of cross-examination by counsel. 1993 SCMR 550, Saeed Ahmed Shah.
Recall of witnesses for cross-examination, when the defence counsel could not cross-examine the prosecution witnesses being absent due to a  mistake. High Court directed that the PWs be recalled for cross-examination in the interest of justice. 1977 P.Cr.LJ 210 Abdul Ghani.
Cross-examination and inference against accused: Counsel putting different questions from different angles of his own. Unless each question be shown to have been put under the proper and specific instructions of accused party no interfere against accused is to be drawn merely from the line of cross-examination. PLJ 1984 FSC 48. Riaz Hussain.
Trend of cross-examination by the question that the Kalashnikov P-1 recovered at the instance of the appellant was not in working order suggests that the recovery of the weapon was accepted 1992 SCMR 305, Ijaz Mahmood.
Trend of cross-examination or suggestions put by defence counsel not in line with rest of cross-examination. Appellant also not taking such plea in his statement, held, questions put by counsel just as an alternative plea without the instructions of his client, hence no inference is to be drawn against the accused merely from the line of cross-examination of his counsel. PLJ 1987 Cr.C. (Lah.) 446 Ghulam Shabbir.
Trend of cross-examination and inference. Trend of cross-examination and suggestions made by defence not only connecting appellant with crime but also eliminating possibility of victim being consenting party. Held, suggestion given having been admitted by witness, same amount to bring proof of facts suggested. PLJ 1985 Cr.C (Lah.) 13. Sher Ali Khan.
Trend of cross-examination, no advice inference can be drawn against the accused, as the counsel was putting different questions from different, angles of his own, unless such questions be shown to have been put on specific instructions of the accused party. PLJ 1984 FSC 48. (DB) Riaz Hussain.
All accused liable to be cross-examined under Article 44 of Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984 PLJ 1987 Cr.C. (Pesh.) 70 Muhammad Saeed.
cross-examination of the accused can be made either when he makes statement as a witness or when he makes his statement u/S. 342, Cr.P.C. PLJ 1986 Cr.C. (Kar.) 589. Muhammad Saleh.
Cross-examination of accused can only be done after he makes a statement u/S. 340(2) Cr.P.C. 1993 SCMR 550, Syed Saeed Muhammad Shah.