Hostile Witnesses And Perjury In Criminal Law
1. Hostile Witness in Criminal Law
Definition:
A hostile witness is a witness who is called by one party but shows antagonism, reluctance, or adverse behavior during testimony, often aligning with the opposing side. This may happen when a witness changes their story or refuses to testify as expected.
Legal Significance:
When a witness is declared hostile, the party who called the witness can cross-examine them like an opposing party, asking leading questions to challenge or impeach their testimony.
Key Case Laws on Hostile Witness:
Case 1: R. v. Richardson (1964) AC 462 (House of Lords, UK)
Facts: In this case, a witness called by the prosecution behaved antagonistically during the trial.
Holding: The court held that once a witness is declared hostile, the party calling them can cross-examine to discredit or impeach the testimony.
Significance: This case established that the trial judge has the discretion to declare a witness hostile if their testimony is adverse or uncooperative, allowing for cross-examination.
Case 2: Ramachandra Rao v. State of Mysore, AIR 1957 SC 628 (India)
Facts: The prosecution witness gave testimony different from the earlier statement and appeared hostile.
Holding: The Supreme Court allowed cross-examination on behalf of the party that called the witness after the court declared the witness hostile.
Significance: The judgment clarified that if a witness behaves contrary to the interest of the party who called them, the court may declare them hostile and allow cross-examination by that party.
Case 3: State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram, AIR 2006 SC 1446 (India)
Facts: A prosecution witness turned hostile and did not support the prosecution’s case.
Holding: The Supreme Court observed that hostile witnesses must be carefully dealt with and cross-examination should be used to expose inconsistencies.
Significance: The court emphasized the importance of trial courts exercising caution while declaring witnesses hostile to maintain fairness.
Case 4: R. v. Khela (1998) 2 WLR 1013 (UK Court of Appeal)
Facts: The prosecution called a witness who turned hostile by refusing to testify against the accused.
Holding: The court allowed the prosecution to cross-examine the witness, establishing the practice of treating hostile witnesses akin to adverse witnesses.
Significance: This case confirmed the procedural allowance for cross-examining hostile witnesses in criminal trials.
2. Perjury in Criminal Law
Definition:
Perjury is the offense of willfully giving false testimony under oath or affirmation in a judicial proceeding, knowing it to be false.
Legal Significance:
Perjury is a serious crime because it undermines the administration of justice. To prove perjury, the prosecution must show:
The statement was false.
The accused knew it was false.
The statement was material to the case.
The statement was made under oath.
Key Case Laws on Perjury:
Case 5: State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384 (India)
Facts: The accused was charged with perjury for giving false evidence during a trial.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that to establish perjury, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the witness deliberately gave false evidence.
Significance: The court emphasized the requirement of proving the intention to give false evidence (mens rea) and materiality of the false statement.
Case 6: Queen v. Hayward (1908) 1 KB 154 (UK)
Facts: The accused gave false testimony during a trial and was charged with perjury.
Holding: The court clarified that for perjury, the false statement must be material to the case's outcome.
Significance: This case set the precedent that trivial or irrelevant falsehoods do not amount to perjury.
Case 7: King v. Sturman (1870) LR 4 CP 182 (UK)
Facts: The accused was charged with perjury for denying facts in a deposition.
Holding: The court stated that the false statement must be made under oath and must be deliberate and intentional.
Significance: Established the essential elements of perjury: oath, false statement, and intent.
Case 8: B. Shama Rao v. The State of Mysore, AIR 1954 SC 381 (India)
Facts: The accused was charged with perjury for providing contradictory statements under oath.
Holding: The court held that a contradictory statement does not amount to perjury unless it is a deliberate lie.
Significance: Distinguished between contradictory testimony due to memory lapse or mistake and deliberate falsehood constituting perjury.
Summary Points:
| Aspect | Hostile Witness | Perjury |
|---|---|---|
| Nature | Witness who turns adverse/uncooperative | Willful false testimony under oath |
| Who can cross-examine? | Party calling the hostile witness | Opposing party after false testimony exposed |
| Requirement | Adverse behavior or testimony | False statement made knowingly and material |
| Legal Consequence | Cross-examination allowed | Criminal offense, punishable by law |
RELATED Blog
0 comments