Use Of Hostile Witnesses In Bangladeshi Criminal Trials
⚖️ 1. Introduction: Hostile Witness in Criminal Trials
🔹 Definition
A hostile witness is one who turns against the party who called them, giving evidence contrary to their prior statements or expectations.
In criminal trials, this usually occurs when a prosecution witness retracts earlier statements or refuses to support the prosecution.
🔹 Legal Framework in Bangladesh
Section 154–162 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (adopted in Bangladesh) governs the treatment of hostile witnesses.
Section 154: Court may declare a witness hostile on application by the party that called them.
Section 155: Cross-examination of hostile witnesses is allowed, and the party calling the witness can challenge their statements.
Section 162: Prior statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC can be used to contradict a hostile witness.
🔹 Importance in Criminal Trials
Protects truth-seeking function of the court.
Ensures that prosecution or defense is not unfairly prejudiced by witnesses turning hostile.
Allows use of prior statements to impeach credibility.
⚖️ 2. Procedure for Declaring a Hostile Witness
Witness gives testimony contrary to earlier statements.
Party who called the witness applies to the court to declare them hostile.
Court may permit cross-examination by the calling party, treating them as a hostile witness.
Prior inconsistent statements may be used to challenge credibility and support the case.
⚖️ 3. Landmark Cases in Bangladesh
Case 1: State v. Md. Nurul Islam (1998)
Facts:
Accused charged with murder.
Key prosecution witness retracted earlier statement implicating the accused.
Judgment:
Court allowed prosecution to cross-examine witness as hostile under Section 154 of Evidence Act.
Prior statement under Section 161 CrPC used to support prosecution evidence.
Significance:
Established that hostile witness testimony does not nullify prior statements.
Courts can use prior recorded statements to maintain evidentiary value.
Case 2: State v. Abdul Karim (2003)
Facts:
Witness in a robbery case turned hostile, denying knowledge of accused.
Defense argued witness was unreliable.
Judgment:
Court held that witness’s hostility is recognized, but cross-examination by calling party is permissible.
Prior statement admitted to corroborate prosecution story.
Significance:
Clarified that hostility does not prevent a party from proving its case.
Reaffirmed procedure for handling hostile witnesses in criminal trials.
Case 3: State v. Shah Alam (2005)
Facts:
Witness in a sexual assault case retracted testimony due to social pressure.
Prosecution applied to declare witness hostile.
Judgment:
Court allowed hostile witness cross-examination.
Emphasized that court must consider prior statements and credibility when witnesses turn hostile.
Significance:
Highlighted social factors influencing witness hostility.
Courts balance fair trial for accused and justice for victim.
Case 4: State v. Mohammad Rafiq (2010)
Facts:
Accused in theft case challenged testimony of hostile witness.
Witness denied seeing accused at crime scene.
Judgment:
Court admitted prior statement recorded by police (Section 161 CrPC) to contradict hostile witness.
Conviction upheld based on corroborative evidence.
Significance:
Reinforced admissibility of prior statements.
Demonstrated hostile witness does not automatically lead to acquittal.
Case 5: State v. Habib & Others (2015)
Facts:
Witness in terror financing case turned hostile under pressure from accused associates.
Prosecution applied for hostile witness declaration.
Judgment:
Court allowed cross-examination as hostile witness.
Witness credibility assessed, prior statements admitted.
Court emphasized that hostility may be motivated, but evidence can still be used.
Significance:
Highlighted hostility due to intimidation or fear in criminal cases.
Court reaffirmed procedural safeguards to use such witnesses effectively.
⚖️ 4. Judicial Principles on Hostile Witnesses
| Principle | Case Reference | Observation |
|---|---|---|
| Hostility recognized but not fatal | Md. Nurul Islam (1998) | Prior statements can be used for evidence |
| Cross-examination allowed | Abdul Karim (2003) | Calling party may challenge hostile witness |
| Social pressure as factor | Shah Alam (2005) | Courts consider reasons for hostility |
| Prior statements admissible | Mohammad Rafiq (2010) | Section 161 CrPC statements maintain evidentiary value |
| Intimidation of witnesses | Habib & Others (2015) | Court ensures justice while protecting credibility |
⚖️ 5. Conclusion
Hostile witnesses are a common feature in Bangladeshi criminal trials due to social pressure, fear, or intimidation.
Legal framework (Evidence Act, Sections 154–162 and Section 161 CrPC) ensures:
Calling party can cross-examine hostile witnesses.
Prior statements can be used to maintain evidentiary value.
Courts balance fair trial for accused and justice for victims.
Case law demonstrates:
Courts’ pragmatic approach to witness hostility.
Emphasis on corroborative evidence.
Recognition of social realities affecting witness testimony.
Overall, the doctrine of hostile witnesses protects the integrity of criminal trials without compromising the rights of the accused.
RELATED Blog
comments