Case Studies On Hostile Witnesses And Cross-Examination
1. R. v. Crown Court at Manchester, ex parte Morgan (1975)
Court: UK Court of Appeal
Summary: This case deals with the approach towards hostile witnesses and cross-examination.
Details:
The court clarified that a witness becomes hostile when they give evidence contrary to the party calling them.
It affirmed that cross-examination of a hostile witness is allowed, enabling the party to challenge the witness’s credibility.
The judgment emphasized the importance of judicial discretion in permitting leading questions to hostile witnesses.
Significance: Established that courts have wide discretion to allow leading questions to hostile witnesses during cross-examination to test their credibility.
2. State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Summary: This case is significant for the treatment of hostile witnesses in Indian criminal trials.
Details:
The Supreme Court held that when a witness turns hostile, the party calling the witness can apply to the court to cross-examine them.
The court explained that hostile witnesses can be treated like an adverse witness and questioned accordingly.
It was emphasized that hostility does not discredit the witness’s entire testimony, and the court must carefully analyze their statements.
Significance: Clarified procedures and the scope of cross-examination of hostile witnesses in Indian criminal law.
3. State of U.P. v. Rajesh Gautam (2003)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Summary: The case highlights the evidentiary value of statements made by hostile witnesses.
Details:
The Court ruled that a hostile witness’s earlier statements (recorded during investigation) can be used as substantive evidence if the witness turns hostile in court.
The judgment affirmed that such prior statements can be used for both impeachment and corroboration purposes.
It also emphasized the need to look at the entire evidence before arriving at a conclusion.
Significance: Established that prior inconsistent statements of hostile witnesses are admissible as evidence.
4. Bhayani Lal v. State of M.P. (1977)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Summary: This case discusses the court’s approach when a key witness turns hostile.
Details:
The Court observed that a hostile witness can severely affect prosecution evidence, but it does not automatically result in acquittal.
The court held that the entire prosecution evidence, including other witnesses and material evidence, must be examined.
The judgment also stressed the importance of effective cross-examination to bring out the truth.
Significance: Reinforced that hostility of one witness does not derail a case if the overall evidence is strong.
5. State of Maharashtra v. Vasudeo (1975)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Summary: This case deals with the scope of cross-examination of a hostile witness.
Details:
The Court ruled that when a witness is declared hostile, the examining party may cross-examine the witness on all relevant matters, including prior inconsistent statements.
It recognized that cross-examination can extend beyond the scope of direct examination to test the witness’s credibility.
The judgment emphasized that the court has the power to treat a witness as hostile if they deliberately give adverse evidence.
Significance: Clarified procedural aspects of handling hostile witnesses during cross-examination.
Summary Table:
| Case | Legal Principle | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| R. v. Crown Court at Manchester | Courts may allow leading questions to hostile witnesses. | Established judicial discretion on hostile witness cross-exam. |
| State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram | Hostile witness can be cross-examined as adverse witness. | Clarified procedure for hostile witnesses in Indian courts. |
| State of U.P. v. Rajesh Gautam | Prior inconsistent statements of hostile witnesses are admissible. | Confirmed evidentiary value of prior statements. |
| Bhayani Lal v. State of M.P. | Hostility does not automatically lead to acquittal. | Importance of evaluating entire evidence. |
| State of Maharashtra v. Vasudeo | Cross-examination can be extended beyond direct examination scope. | Detailed procedural guidance on handling hostile witnesses. |
Conclusion:
Judicial precedents establish that hostile witnesses are common in trials, and courts have evolved rules to allow effective cross-examination to test credibility, use prior inconsistent statements, and carefully assess the impact of hostility on overall evidence. The courts exercise discretion in protecting the rights of parties and ensuring that the truth emerges.
RELATED Blog
0 comments