Case Law On Hostile Witnesses
Understanding Hostile Witnesses:
A hostile witness is a witness who, after being examined on behalf of a party, turns against the party by giving testimony adverse to their case. In such cases, the party who called the witness may seek permission from the court to cross-examine their own witness to challenge or discredit their testimony.
The concept is mainly governed by Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
1. Ratan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1978)
Facts:
The prosecution witness turned hostile during the trial and gave statements favorable to the accused.
Court’s Holding:
The Supreme Court held that the trial court has wide discretion to declare a witness hostile.
It emphasized that the court must be satisfied that the witness is indeed hostile before allowing re-examination by the party calling the witness.
The Court stated that a witness does not become hostile merely because their testimony is unfavorable, but only if they show an express and unequivocal hostility or are adverse to the party’s case.
Significance:
Sets the threshold for declaring a witness hostile — not just adverse testimony but deliberate hostility.
Confirms the trial court’s discretion in the matter.
2. Krishna Ram Mahale v. State of Maharashtra (2017)
Facts:
A key prosecution witness gave a version inconsistent with the earlier statement to the police.
Court’s Analysis:
The Supreme Court reiterated that hostility means the witness has become antagonistic to the party who called him.
The court held that the trial judge must give a proper opportunity to the party to cross-examine their own witness once hostility is declared.
It also ruled that inconsistent statements alone may not amount to hostility, but may affect credibility.
Significance:
Clarifies that inconsistency alone does not mean hostility — a witness must be openly adverse.
Reinforces procedural fairness in handling hostile witnesses.
3. S. Sankaran v. State of Tamil Nadu (1990)
Facts:
The accused called a witness who turned hostile, denying earlier statements made to the police.
Court’s Observation:
The Supreme Court observed that the trial court’s discretion in declaring hostility cannot be interfered with lightly.
It emphasized that the fact that a witness turns hostile is not fatal to prosecution or defense, and the court must consider the evidence as a whole.
Cross-examination of hostile witnesses can bring out the truth.
Significance:
Reinforces the discretion of the trial court.
A hostile witness does not necessarily weaken the case if cross-examined properly.
4. Ramnarayan Gupta v. State of MP (1960)
Facts:
The trial court declared a prosecution witness hostile after he disowned his earlier statements.
Court’s Ruling:
The Supreme Court stated that the correct procedure is to apply for permission to cross-examine the witness after declaring him hostile.
The Court held that even if a witness is hostile, his earlier statements to the police can be used to impeach his credibility.
The earlier statements may be used as substantive evidence if corroborated.
Significance:
Clarifies the evidentiary value of prior inconsistent statements of hostile witnesses.
Allows the prosecution/defense to use these statements to prove the truth.
5. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Though primarily a fundamental rights case, this judgment briefly touched on the rights of witnesses:
Relevance:
The Court held that witnesses have the right to dignity and protection from coercion during trial.
It emphasized that forcing witnesses to turn hostile or protecting them from threats is essential for fair trial.
Significance:
Protects witnesses from undue pressure that might make them hostile.
Supports fair trial rights and truthful testimony.
Summary of Legal Principles on Hostile Witnesses:
A witness becomes hostile when they expressly act adverse to the party who called them, not merely by giving unfavorable testimony.
The trial court has wide discretion to declare a witness hostile and allow cross-examination by the party who called them.
Prior inconsistent statements made by hostile witnesses may be used to impeach credibility and as substantive evidence if corroborated.
Courts exercise caution in declaring hostility and balance procedural fairness.
Witnesses must be protected from coercion or threats that may cause hostility.
RELATED Blog
0 comments