Testimony Of Hostile Witnesses
What is a Hostile Witness?
A hostile witness is a witness who, during examination, shows unwillingness to support the party who called them or turns adverse, contradicting earlier statements or refuses to answer truthfully. This often happens when witnesses retract previous statements or appear biased.
Legal Provisions for Hostile Witnesses in India
Section 154 of the Evidence Act, 1872: Defines hostile witnesses.
Section 145 of the Evidence Act, 1872: Allows a party to cross-examine its own witness if declared hostile.
Section 146 of the Evidence Act, 1872: Enables proof of previous inconsistent statements of a hostile witness.
Section 148 of the Evidence Act, 1872: Allows refreshment of memory by prior statements.
Section 161 CrPC: Deals with examination of witnesses by police and contradictions.
Procedure When Witness Turns Hostile
The party who called the witness applies to the court to declare the witness hostile.
Court grants permission to cross-examine the witness.
The party can then ask leading questions or impeach the witness’s credibility by showing contradictions.
Important Case Laws on Testimony of Hostile Witnesses
1. State of Rajasthan vs. Kashi Ram, AIR 2006 SC 1447
Facts:
The accused challenged conviction based on testimony of a witness who turned hostile.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that the testimony of a hostile witness can still be relied upon if corroborated by other evidence. Hostility does not render testimony automatically unreliable.
Significance:
Clarified that hostility affects credibility but does not make evidence inadmissible.
2. Gopal Vinayak Godse vs. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1961 SC 616
Facts:
A witness became hostile and gave contradictory statements.
Judgment:
The Court allowed cross-examination of hostile witnesses to expose inconsistencies. Previous statements can be used to impeach their credibility.
Significance:
Laid down procedure for dealing with hostile witnesses and use of previous statements.
3. K. Parasaran vs. T.N. Seshan, AIR 1996 SC 1153
Facts:
The case involved examination of witnesses hostile to the party that called them.
Judgment:
Supreme Court emphasized that even hostile witnesses' testimony can form the basis for conviction if found credible after cross-examination.
Significance:
Hostility does not discredit testimony if consistent and corroborated.
4. State of Maharashtra vs. Suresh, AIR 1994 SC 1187
Facts:
A witness turned hostile during trial in a murder case.
Judgment:
The Court held that the court must consider the entire evidence and not reject a hostile witness’s testimony outright. Contradictions must be examined carefully.
Significance:
Encouraged judicial discretion in evaluating hostile witness testimony.
5. Chandramani Singh vs. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 172
Facts:
The accused argued that the main witness turned hostile.
Judgment:
Supreme Court observed that hostility is common in criminal cases. It doesn’t mean the witness is lying but may be under pressure.
Significance:
Warned courts to treat hostility as a factor, not an absolute bar.
6. Nand Kishore Singh vs. State of UP, AIR 1993 SC 2176
Facts:
The prosecution’s main witness turned hostile in a murder trial.
Judgment:
The Court allowed cross-examination of hostile witnesses and ruled that inconsistent testimony can be used for impeachment.
Significance:
Strengthened the procedural law on handling hostile witnesses.
7. Narayan Swami & Ors vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 1996
Facts:
A hostile witness gave contradictory evidence in a criminal case.
Judgment:
The Court stated that courts must scrutinize hostile witnesses’ evidence carefully but it can still be used if trustworthy.
Significance:
Emphasized evaluation over outright rejection.
Summary Table of Case Laws on Hostile Witnesses
| Case | Key Principle | Impact on Hostile Witness Testimony |
|---|---|---|
| State of Rajasthan vs. Kashi Ram | Hostile witness testimony admissible if corroborated | Hostility affects credibility, not admissibility |
| Gopal Vinayak Godse | Cross-examination of hostile witness permitted | Use of previous statements to impeach credibility |
| K. Parasaran vs. T.N. Seshan | Hostile testimony can sustain conviction if credible | Hostility is not fatal if testimony is consistent |
| State of Maharashtra vs. Suresh | Courts must evaluate entire evidence, not reject hostile outright | Judicial discretion emphasized |
| Chandramani Singh | Hostility common but does not imply lying | Courts must treat hostility as a factor |
| Nand Kishore Singh | Inconsistent testimony can be used to impeach | Strengthened procedures for handling hostile witness |
| Narayan Swami | Careful scrutiny needed but testimony usable | Evaluation over rejection principle |
Practical Implications
A party can apply to court to declare its own witness hostile.
Leading questions can be asked during cross-examination of hostile witnesses.
Previous statements made by the hostile witness can be introduced to show contradictions.
Hostility often arises due to fear, intimidation, or pressure.
Courts look for corroboration before fully relying on hostile witnesses.
Conclusion
The testimony of hostile witnesses plays a complex role in criminal trials. While hostility affects the witness’s credibility, courts do not automatically discard such testimony. Instead, the law provides mechanisms like cross-examination and impeachment to test the reliability of the hostile witness’s statements. Ultimately, the court exercises discretion to decide the weight of hostile testimony in light of other evidence.
RELATED Blog
0 comments