Is It Safe To Rely On The Testimony Of A Hostile Witness?
Is it Safe to Rely on the Testimony of a Hostile Witness?
The testimony of a hostile witness—one who exhibits antagonism or unwillingness toward the party that called them—poses a complex challenge in legal proceedings. While such testimony is admissible, relying on it requires caution. Courts do not outright reject hostile witness testimony; instead, they evaluate its credibility with heightened scrutiny.
I. Definition of Hostile Witness
A hostile witness (also called an "adverse witness") is one who:
Contradicts their earlier statement,
Refuses to tell the truth, or
Demonstrates a bias against the party who called them.
Under Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872:
"The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party."
This section enables the calling party to treat their own witness as hostile and cross-examine them.
II. Admissibility and Evidentiary Value
➤ A. Admissibility
Even if a witness is declared hostile, their testimony is not automatically rejected. It remains part of the record, and the court is empowered to examine whether any portion of it is credible and corroborated by other evidence.
➤ B. Evidentiary Value
The testimony of a hostile witness:
Can be partially relied upon if it is credible and corroborated,
Must be scrutinized more carefully than that of a neutral witness,
Cannot be discarded wholesale merely due to hostility.
III. Important Case Laws
✅ 1. Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration (1976) 1 SCC 727
Principle: The court held that the testimony of a hostile witness does not become useless. The statement must be examined to see whether it is credible in parts and supported by other evidence.
Observation: “Even in the testimony of a hostile witness, there may be elements of truth which have to be separated from falsehood.”
✅ 2. Koli Lakhmanbhai Chanabhai v. State of Gujarat (1999) 8 SCC 624
Principle: Conviction can be based on the testimony of a hostile witness if it is corroborated by other evidence or inspires confidence.
✅ 3. State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra (1996) 10 SCC 360
Principle: Hostile testimony can still be relied upon partially, especially where it supports the prosecution's case and is consistent with other evidence.
“It is not necessary to discard the entire evidence of a hostile witness. The court can rely on such part of the testimony which is found to be reliable.”
✅ 4. Balu Sonba Shinde v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 7 SCC 543
Principle: Testimony of a hostile witness cannot be brushed aside merely because the witness has turned hostile. If the court finds any portion of the testimony trustworthy, it can form the basis of conviction.
✅ 5. Gubbala Venugopalaswamy v. State of A.P. 2021 SCC OnLine SC 452
The Supreme Court held that courts can rely on a hostile witness's credible part of the testimony, especially if it aligns with other prosecution evidence.
IV. Guidelines for Reliance on Hostile Witness Testimony
Corroboration – Independent corroboration enhances the credibility of hostile testimony.
Partial Acceptance – Courts may accept the truthful part and reject the rest.
Judicial Discretion – Judges assess demeanor, consistency, and motive.
Burden on Prosecution – The prosecution must still establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, regardless of hostile witnesses.
V. Conclusion
✅ Is it Safe?
Conditionally, Yes. The testimony of a hostile witness can be relied upon if the court is satisfied that:
It is credible, and
It is supported by other reliable evidence.
The court exercises judicial discretion in evaluating such evidence. Blind reliance is unsafe, but partial reliance after careful evaluation is both lawful and common in criminal jurisprudence.
RELATED Blog
0 comments