Case Law On Hostile Witnesses And Cross-Examination
1. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajesh Gautam (2003)
Facts:
In this criminal case, the prosecution witness turned hostile and started denying earlier statements made to the police. The trial court permitted cross-examination by the prosecution to challenge the witness’s credibility.
Supreme Court’s Ruling:
The Court held that a witness becomes hostile when he turns adverse and contradicts his previous statements or refuses to testify according to the prosecution's case.
It emphasized that the party calling the witness can cross-examine him to expose inconsistencies or falsehoods.
The judgment clarified that the witness’s testimony after turning hostile can be used for impeaching the witness but also for establishing facts if admissions favorable to the prosecution exist.
Significance:
This case is a leading authority on the definition and treatment of hostile witnesses.
It lays down the procedural right of parties to cross-examine their own witnesses when declared hostile.
2. State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996)
Facts:
In a murder trial, one of the prosecution witnesses turned hostile and refused to support the prosecution version.
Supreme Court’s Observations:
The Court observed that the label of hostile witness is used when the witness contradicts earlier statements or refuses to support the party that called him.
However, it stressed that hostility should not be lightly or mechanically assumed but must be based on material contradictions.
The Court further explained that the scope of cross-examination of hostile witnesses includes questioning on prior statements to prove their truthfulness.
Significance:
The judgment stresses caution and judicial discretion before declaring a witness hostile.
It highlights the evidentiary role of hostile witnesses and the importance of their prior statements.
3. Raghunath Singh v. State of M.P. (1966)
Facts:
The accused faced trial where some witnesses initially supported the prosecution but later turned hostile.
Supreme Court’s Ruling:
The Court held that even if a witness turns hostile, their prior statements recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) can be used to corroborate prosecution’s case.
The Court clarified that such statements can be proved through cross-examination or by using other witnesses.
Significance:
This case confirms the use of Section 161 statements as substantive evidence despite witness hostility.
It reinforces the power of courts to rely on recorded prior statements to counter hostile testimony.
4. K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1962)
Facts:
In this famous case, the prosecution’s main witness gave evidence hostile to the prosecution’s case.
Supreme Court’s Analysis:
The Court acknowledged that a witness who turns hostile is often cross-examined by the party who called him to extract the truth and test credibility.
It pointed out that a hostile witness’s testimony is not automatically discarded but must be examined for parts that may be reliable.
The Court also highlighted the strategic role of hostile witnesses in challenging the other party’s case.
Significance:
This classic ruling provides foundational principles on handling hostile witnesses in criminal trials.
It reinforces that the adverse testimony of a hostile witness may still be relevant.
5. Sultan Singh v. State of Haryana (1992)
Facts:
In a criminal trial, several witnesses turned hostile and refused to implicate the accused.
Supreme Court’s Ruling:
The Court emphasized that a hostile witness does not lose credibility completely and their testimony must be weighed with care.
It held that the trial court should be cautious while relying solely on hostile witnesses or rejecting their entire testimony.
The Court encouraged the use of other corroborative evidence to support or discredit hostile witness testimony.
Significance:
The judgment promotes balanced judicial evaluation of hostile witnesses.
It cautions courts against undue reliance on hostile witnesses without corroboration.
Summary Table:
| Case Name | Year | Key Aspect | Judicial Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| State of U.P. v. Rajesh Gautam | 2003 | Definition & cross-examination of hostile witness | Party can cross-examine own hostile witness to impeach testimony |
| State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh | 1996 | Caution before declaring hostility | Hostility must be based on material contradiction |
| Raghunath Singh v. State of M.P. | 1966 | Use of Section 161 statements | Prior recorded statements usable despite hostility |
| K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra | 1962 | Hostile witness evidence | Hostile testimony not discarded outright; must be carefully weighed |
| Sultan Singh v. State of Haryana | 1992 | Balanced evaluation of hostile witness | Corroboration needed; cautious judicial approach |
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized that:
A witness may be declared hostile only when there is clear contradiction or adverse stance from the witness against the party that called him.
The party calling a hostile witness is entitled to cross-examine him to expose contradictions and elicit the truth.
Prior statements (Section 161 CrPC) of the hostile witness remain valuable and can be used substantively.
The testimony of hostile witnesses must be carefully scrutinized and balanced with other evidence before acceptance or rejection.
These principles protect the fairness of the trial while allowing the truth to emerge through adversarial testing.
RELATED Blog
0 comments