What may occur if a witness's evidence is not challenged during examination?

When a witness’s evidence is not challenged during examination, it may be taken as accepted and cannot be contradicted later in the proceedings. This principle stems from the idea that unchallenged testimony gains a level of credibility by virtue of its acceptance by the opposing party. If no contradictory evidence is presented, the court can rely on this testimony as a true representation of the facts as stated by the witness. This is particularly important in adversarial systems, where the responsibility to challenge evidence lies primarily with the opposing party.

Moreover, once a witness’s evidence is accepted by the court, it can establish facts that are beneficial to the party whose witness has provided the unchallenged testimony. This does not mean the evidence is automatically accepted as true in all circumstances, but it creates a presumption that can influence the outcome of the case.

The other options do not accurately reflect what happens when evidence is left unchallenged. For instance, evidence does not become irrelevant simply because it is not challenged; rather, it may still have relevance based on the context. Similarly, a witness’s reliability cannot be assumed or deemed lacking simply because their evidence was unchallenged, nor does it mean further questioning is required when there is acceptance of the evidence as presented.