LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

cross examin by hostile witness!

(Querist) 27 March 2011 This query is : Resolved 
What are the releted questions (general questions)by both side(difence & prosicution) when we are disclosing the witness as hostile!


Advocate. Arunagiri (Expert) 27 March 2011
The entire evidence will be doubtfull and will have no value if the witness turns hostile.
srinivasp (Expert) 27 March 2011
Defence side need not asking any questions,Public prosecuter cross examination only with the persimssion of the court declare the witness hostel, and cross examination by app.
indrajit mukhopadhyay (Expert) 27 March 2011
When a witness is declared to be a hostile one and if he out rightly rejects the prosecution story then defence may not ask anything to that witness or defence may put the questions which are favourable to their side.The nature and status of the witness must have to be understood by the conducting lawyer prior to put the question.
Advocate Sachdev Bishnoi (Expert) 28 March 2011
in the hostile case the public prosecutor will declare him hostile and then he will cross examine the witness and then the opportunity will be given to the defense side and then the nil opportunity will be done there as the witness turned hostile favoring the accused side
Sarvesh Kumar Sharma Advocate (Querist) 30 March 2011
what type of question will ask ?
Sarvesh Kumar Sharma Advocate (Querist) 30 March 2011
by the side of defence!
and by the side of prosicution!
in which the witness will not effected in the eye of law!
bhupender sharma (Expert) 30 March 2011
the testimony of the hostile witness will not be totally discarded rather the deposition made by him to the effect supporting the prosecution in favour of the prosecution shall be taken in to consideration.
1. So far as the question on behalf of the prosecution is conceerned the prosecutor will put him the suggestions qua the non corroboration of the facts/ statements recorded undersection 161 of the Cr.P.C.
2. So far as the quwation on behalf of the defence is concerned the defence counsel will ask or cross examin the witness to the extent he is favouring the prosecution story or the witness may be examined as whole keeping in view the facts how much it effects the defence.
Ravikant Soni (Expert) 09 July 2011
A prosecution witness declared hostile when he goes against prosecution by stating something which is destructive of the prosecution case, the prosecution prays to the Court that the witness be treated as hostile. In such a case, the trial Court allows the Public Prosecutor to treat the witness as hostile. And let him to ask questions as usually asked in cross-examination in other words the leading questions. Section 154 of the Evidence Act is the only provision under which a party calling its own witness may claim permission of the Court to cross-examine them. The section confers a judicial discretion on the Court to permit cross-examination and does not contain any conditions or principles which may govern the exercise of such discretion. It is, however, well-settled that the discretion must be judiciously and properly exercised in the interests of justice. A party will not normally be allowed to cross-examine its own witness and declare the same hostile, unless the Court is satisfied that the statement of the witness exhibits an element of hostility or that he has resiled from a material statement which he made before an earlier authority or where the Court is satisfied that the witness is not speaking the truth and it may be necessary to cross-examine him to get out the truth. Before a witness can be declared hostile and the party examining the witness is allowed to cross-examine him, there must be some material to show that the witness is not speaking the truth or has exhibited an element of hostility to the party for whom he is deposing. Merely because a witness in an unguarded moment speak the truth which may not suit the prosecution or which may be favourable to the accused, the discretion to allow the party concerned to cross-examine its own witnesses cannot be allowed. In order to ascertain the intention of the witness or his conduct, the Judge concerned may look into the statements made by the witness before the Investigating Officer or the previous authorities to find out as to whether or not there is any indication of the witness making a statement inconsistent on a most material point with the one which he gave before the previous authorities. The Court must, however, distinguish between a statement made by the witness by way of an unfriendly act and one which lets out the truth without any hostile intention. The matter will largely depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and on the satisfaction of the Court on the basis of those circumstances. Broadly, however, this much is clear that the contingency of cross-examining the witness by the party calling him is an extraordinary phenomenon and permission should be given only in special cases. Further more, it is not merely on the basis of small or insignificant omission that the witness may have made before the earlier authorities that the party calling the witness can ask the Court to exercise its discretion. The Court, before permitting the party calling the witness to cross-examine him, must scan and weigh the circumstances properly and should not exercise its discretion in a casual or routine manner. It is also clearly well settled that the mere fact that a witness is declared hostile by the party calling him and allowed to be cross-examined does not make him an unreliable witness so as to exclude his evidence from consideration altogether. The evidence remains admissible in the trial and there is no legal bar to base a conviction upon his testimony if corroborated by other reliable evidence. (AIR 1977 SUPREME COURT 170 "Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa")
Ravikant Soni (Expert) 09 July 2011

Section 137 gives only the three stages in the examination of a witness, namely examination-in-chief, cross-examination and re-examination. This is a routine sequence in the examination of a witness. This has no relevance to the question when a party calling a witness can be permitted to put to him questions under S. 154: that is governed by the provisions of S. 154 which confers a discretionary power on the court to permit a person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. Section 154 does not in terms, or by necessary implication, confines the exercise of the power by the Court before the examination-in-chief is concluded or to any particular stage of the examination of the witness. It is wide in scope and the discretion is entirely left to the court to exercise the power when the circumstances demand. To confine this power to the stage of examination-in-chief is to make it ineffective in practice. A clever witness in his examination-in-chief faithfully conforms to what he stated earlier to the police or in the committing court, but in the cross-examination introduces statements in a subtle way contradicting in effect what he stated in the examination-in-chief. If his design is obvious the Court can during the course of his re-examination permit the person calling him as a witness to put questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. It cannot also be said that if a party calling a witness is permitted to put such questions to the witness after he has been cross-examined by the adverse party, the adverse party will not have any opportunity to further cross-examine the witness on the answers elicited by putting such questions. In such an event the Court certainly, in exercise of its discretion, will permit the adverse party to cross-examine the witness on the answers elicited by such questions. The Court, therefore, can permit a person, who calls a witness, to put questions to him which might be put in the cross-examination at any stage of the examination of the witness, provided it takes care to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine him on the answers elicited which do not find place in the examination-in-chief. (AIR 1964 SUPREME COURT 1563 "Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat").
True, it is that the evidence of the hostile witness is not altogether wiped out and remains admissible in evidence and there is no legal bar to base conviction on the basis of the testimony of hostile witness but as a rule of prudence, the Court requires corroboration by other reliable evidence. AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 2977 "Podyami Sukada v. State of M. P."
In Ramesh Prasad Misra case (Supra), Supreme Court held that evidence of a hostile witness would not be totally rejected if spoken in favour of the prosecution or the accused but required to be subjected to close scrutiny and that portion of the evidence which is consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence can be relied upon. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Balu Sonba Shinde v. State of (AIR 2002 SC 3137)
In the case of Karruppanna Thevar and Ors. v. The State of Tamil Nadu (AIR1976 SC 980), the Supreme Court has again held as under:-
"A hostile witness may not be rejected outright but the Court has at least to be aware that, prima facie, a witness who makes different statements at different times has no regard for truth. The Court should therefore be slow to act on the testimony of such a witness and, normally, it should look for corroboration to his evidence. Far from doing so, the High Court utilised a contradiction in the evidence of the hostile witness for corroborating the evidence of five other witnesses."
In the case of Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa (AIR 1977 SC 170), the Supreme Court has held as under:-
"It is also clearly well settled that the mere fact that a witness is declared hostile by the party calling him and allowed to be cross-examined does not make him an unreliable witness so as to exclude his evidence from consideration altogether. The evidence remains admissible in the trial and there is no legal bar to base a conviction upon his testimony if corroborated by other reliable evidence. AIR 1964 SC 1563 and AIR 1976 SC 202, relied on."
In case of Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka (AIR 1979 SC 1848), Supreme Court has again held that if a witness is declared hostile, this is no ground by itself to reject his testimony in toto. His testimony not shaken on material points in cross-examination can not be brushed aside. Relied on Sat Paul's case (supra).
In case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chet Ram and Ors. (AIR 1989 SC 1543), Supreme Court has held that the High Court should not brush aside the entire evidence which fully corroborates P. W. 3, merely on the ground he had been declared a hostile witness. The High Court has failed to bear in mind that merely because a witness is declared hostile, his entire evidence does not get excluded or rendered unworthy of consideration.

Sarvesh Kumar Sharma Advocate (Querist) 09 July 2011
ravikaant jee thanks a lot1


You need to be the querist or approved LAWyersclub expert to take part in this query .


Click here to login now



Similar Resolved Queries :





Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query