Hostile Witnesses In Trials
What is a Hostile Witness?
A hostile witness is a witness who, during trial or examination, shows antagonism or adverse interest towards the party who called them, or gives evidence that is contradictory, evasive, or damaging to the party that summoned them.
Legal Context
Under Indian Evidence Act, 1872, specifically Section 154, the party who calls a witness can apply to the court to declare the witness hostile if the witness turns adverse.
Once declared hostile, the party can cross-examine the witness (who would otherwise be examined-in-chief by that party) to test the credibility of their testimony.
Why is this Important?
Normally, witnesses called by a party are expected to be favorable or at least neutral.
If a witness turns hostile, it challenges the party's case.
Declaring a witness hostile allows the calling party to challenge the witness aggressively like an opposing party.
Legal Provision – Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973
"When a witness called by the prosecution or accused disowns the credit to the case of the party who calls him or gives evidence which is adverse to that party, the Court may, on application, permit the party who calls him to cross-examine him as if he were an adverse witness."
Important Case Laws on Hostile Witnesses
1. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604
Facts:
In this case, a prosecution witness turned hostile and denied statements made earlier during investigation.
Held:
The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of proper procedure for declaring a witness hostile. The court held that the trial court has discretion to declare a witness hostile only after due application by the party who summoned the witness.
Significance:
The court clarified that hostile witness provisions are meant to safeguard fair trial but should not be misused.
2. Om Prakash v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1959 SC 546
Facts:
A prosecution witness retracted his earlier statement and turned hostile.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that contradictory statements by a witness do not mean the witness must be declared hostile automatically. The party must apply to the court and the court must be satisfied the witness is hostile.
Significance:
Contradiction alone is not sufficient to declare hostility; attitude and intention of the witness are important.
3. K.S. Verma v. Union of India, AIR 1966 SC 199
Facts:
Government servant called as witness refused to support prosecution and denied earlier statements.
Held:
Court held that a witness who turns hostile should be cross-examined by the party who called him and his hostile attitude is a ground for impeaching his credibility.
Significance:
Recognized hostile witness cross-examination as a tool to test veracity and credibility.
4. Krishna Ramachandra Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1969 SC 75
Facts:
During trial, witness disowned previous statement favorable to prosecution.
Held:
Court held that the witness may be declared hostile, and his prior statements can be used to contradict him, but prior statements must be proved to be made in relevant circumstances.
Significance:
Established that prior inconsistent statements are admissible to impeach hostile witnesses under Section 145 of the Evidence Act.
5. Raghunath Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 850
Facts:
Witness who initially supported the prosecution turned hostile during trial.
Held:
Supreme Court observed that witnesses are entitled to change their version but if they do so in an evasive or contradictory manner, they can be declared hostile.
Significance:
Emphasized the discretion of courts in deciding hostility and allowed cross-examination accordingly.
6. Dattu Ramrao Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1966 SC 144
Facts:
A witness gave evidence which was contradictory and adverse to the party who called him.
Held:
The Court clarified that simply giving unfavorable evidence does not automatically make a witness hostile. The witness must show a clear antagonism or refusal to speak the truth to be declared hostile.
Significance:
Draws a distinction between hostile evidence and hostile witness.
7. Rajendra Prasad v. State of U.P., AIR 1955 SC 549
Facts:
Prosecution witness who made contradictory statements during trial.
Held:
Court allowed cross-examination of the witness as hostile and permitted use of prior inconsistent statements to impeach credibility.
Significance:
Supports the principle of allowing impeachment of hostile witnesses through cross-examination.
Summary of Legal Principles on Hostile Witnesses
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Definition | Witness who turns adverse to the party calling them |
| Section | Section 154 CrPC and Section 145 Evidence Act |
| Requirement | Party must apply to court to declare witness hostile |
| Effect | Party can cross-examine the witness as if an adverse party |
| Use of Prior Statements | Prior inconsistent statements admissible to impeach witness credibility |
| Discretion of Court | Court decides if witness is hostile after hearing parties |
Practical Implications
If a witness supports your case but then turns hostile, you can request the court to declare them hostile.
This allows you to challenge their credibility aggressively.
Prior statements made by the witness (e.g., in police statements) can be used to contradict their current testimony.
However, hostility must be proved and cannot be presumed.
RELATED Blog
0 comments