Judicial Precedents On Hostile Witnesses
What is a Hostile Witness?
A hostile witness is a witness who, after being sworn in, shows hostility or antagonism towards the party that called them to testify. This hostility is usually demonstrated by:
Giving evasive or adverse answers.
Refusing to answer questions directly.
Contradicting earlier statements or affidavits.
Acting as if aligned with the opposing party.
Legal Significance of Declaring a Witness Hostile
When a witness is declared hostile:
The party who called the witness can cross-examine their own witness.
Cross-examination allows leading questions, which are otherwise not permitted in examination-in-chief.
It helps to challenge the credibility or reliability of the witness.
Courts have powers to control such situations to ensure fair trial and proper fact-finding.
Relevant Legal Provisions (India)
Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Permits a party to cross-examine their own witness if declared hostile.
Judicial discretion plays a key role in declaring a witness hostile.
Judicial Precedents on Hostile Witnesses
1. State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh (1992)
Citation: AIR 1992 SC 1981
Facts:
The prosecution’s witness gave testimony unfavorable to the prosecution.
The trial court allowed the prosecution to treat the witness as hostile and cross-examine him.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that the trial court has discretion to declare a witness hostile.
The court emphasized that hostility must be actual, not presumed.
The party must first ask questions and then show the witness is being evasive or adverse.
Importance:
Established that the court has discretion but must ensure that hostility is genuine.
Clarified the procedure before declaring a witness hostile.
2. Surajdeo Singh v. State of Bihar (1967)
Citation: AIR 1967 SC 1887
Facts:
The prosecution called a witness whose statements turned contradictory and unfavorable.
The trial court permitted cross-examination by the prosecution.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that if a witness contradicts earlier statements or behaves evasively, they can be declared hostile.
The court underscored that the object of declaring a hostile witness is to bring out the truth.
The party is allowed to ask leading questions.
Importance:
Reinforced the principle that a hostile witness can be cross-examined by the party calling them.
Highlighted that contradictions and evasiveness justify hostility.
3. M. Vijayalaksmi v. State of Tamil Nadu (1988)
Citation: AIR 1988 SC 1399
Facts:
A key prosecution witness turned hostile and denied previous statements.
The trial court allowed cross-examination by the prosecution.
Judgment:
Supreme Court stated that hostile witness must have shown actual hostility.
The court cautioned against misuse of the power to declare hostility.
The court also noted that the witness cannot be compelled to incriminate themselves, but adverse testimony can be challenged.
Importance:
Emphasized judicial caution and procedural safeguards.
Warned against arbitrary labeling of witnesses as hostile.
4. Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor (1936)
Citation: AIR 1936 PC 253
Facts:
A witness called by prosecution turned hostile during trial.
Prosecution sought permission to cross-examine their own witness.
Judgment:
The Privy Council held that the court has the discretion to permit cross-examination of a hostile witness.
It recognized the difference between examination-in-chief and cross-examination.
Leading questions are allowed once hostility is declared.
Importance:
One of the earliest and authoritative decisions establishing the legal foundation of hostile witnesses.
Clarified the scope and limits of examination of hostile witnesses.
5. Ram Chander v. State of Punjab (1974)
Citation: AIR 1974 SC 1541
Facts:
The prosecution’s witness denied statements made to the police.
The court permitted the prosecution to treat him as hostile.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that contradictory statements to earlier affidavits or police reports justify declaring hostility.
The decision to declare hostility is a matter of judicial discretion.
It is not necessary that every contradictory statement must lead to hostility.
Importance:
Emphasized discretion and fact-specific analysis.
Helped distinguish between minor inconsistencies and true hostility.
Summary Table
| Case Name | Year | Key Legal Principle | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|---|---|
| State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh | 1992 | Court’s discretion to declare hostility must be actual | India |
| Surajdeo Singh v. State of Bihar | 1967 | Contradictions/evasiveness justify hostile witness | India |
| M. Vijayalaksmi v. State of Tamil Nadu | 1988 | Caution against misuse of hostile witness designation | India |
| Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor | 1936 | Foundation of hostile witness concept and cross-exam. | Privy Council (India) |
| Ram Chander v. State of Punjab | 1974 | Judicial discretion and fact-specific approach | India |
Conclusion
A hostile witness is one who turns against the party that calls them.
Courts have the discretion to declare hostility, allowing cross-examination by the calling party.
Contradictory statements, evasiveness, or adverse testimony justify declaring a witness hostile.
Judicial caution is necessary to prevent misuse.
This doctrine helps in truth-seeking and fair trial.
RELATED Blog
0 comments