Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act and the Hostile Witnesses | Civil Law for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Introduction

• A witness plays a crucial role in a country's justice system by aiding courts in uncovering the truth. Witnesses are essential to a case, as they are often described as "the eyes and ears of justice" by Bentham.
• However, when witnesses become hostile, it can significantly impact the quality of trial proceedings. A fair trial may be compromised if a witness refuses to cooperate and share relevant information.
• In Indian law, the concept of a "hostile witness" is not explicitly defined in statutes but has its roots in Common Law. Common law characterizes a hostile witness as someone who demonstrates a lack of willingness to tell the truth as requested by the party calling them.
• A hostile witness is typically uncooperative and may work against the interests of the party calling them. They might withhold information or provide contradictory testimony, undermining the legal process.

Section 154 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872

• Section 154 of The Indian Evidence Act empowers a party to question its own witness, allowing for cross-examination of a witness called by that party.
• The court has the discretion to permit the party to ask questions that the opposing party might ask during cross-examination.
• This section enables a party to pose leading questions or cross-examine a witness, especially if the witness appears hostile or unwilling to cooperate.
• A witness changing statements between different stages of a legal proceeding does not automatically make them hostile.
• A witness is deemed hostile when their manner of answering or behavior indicates a reluctance to tell the truth or when they are influenced by the opposing party.
• The court may declare a witness hostile if requested by the party calling the witness, based on the witness's testimony being adversarial or biased.
• Section 154 cannot be invoked solely based on a lack of support from a person without clear indications.
• The court's approval for cross-examining a witness by a party should be based on valid evidence.

Interpretation of Hostile Witness

• In legal contexts, a hostile witness is characterized by a reluctance to disclose the truth and may end up supporting facts contrary to the calling party's stance.
• Hostility in a witness can be discerned from their responses and behavior, where they show unfriendliness or intentionally provide contradictory evidence.

Case Examples

• In the Sat Paul vs Delhi Administration case, the court differentiated between hostile and unfavorable witnesses based on their truthfulness and impact on the case.
• The G.S. Bakshi V. State case emphasized that a witness can be labeled as hostile based on their responses and demeanor, especially if they deliberately provide misleading information.
• Rabindra Kumar Dey V. State of Orissa highlighted that a witness speaking truth against the party calling them does not necessarily make them hostile.
• The Best Bakery case illustrated how external pressures can lead a witness to turn hostile and provide false testimony, impacting the outcome of the case.
• In Panchanan Gogoi vs Emperor, a hostile witness was described as one unwilling to uphold their previous statements, indicating a lack of truthfulness.

Questions by Party to His Own Witness

• When a party calls a witness, the testimony provided may unexpectedly favor the opposing party.
• This scenario raises questions about the witness's conduct and motives during the testimony.
• If the witness appears biased or inclined to support the opposite party, their credibility comes into question.
• Prior statements made by the witness, even if volunteered, cannot be used if not addressed during the examination.
• In such instances, it is the responsibility of the prosecution to establish contradictions through cross-examination.
• The party that called the witness has the right to assess the witness's authenticity and credibility.

Guidelines for Cross-Examination

When a court, at its own discretion, allows a party to cross-examine its own witness, certain types of questions may be posed:

• Leading questions (Section 143)
• Questions regarding the witness's previous written statements (Section 145)
• Questions under Section 146 aimed at damaging the witness's character
• Questions that challenge the witness's credibility (Section 155)

For instance, leading questions can be seen as those which suggest a particular answer or put words into the witness's mouth, influencing their responses. On the other hand, questions about previous statements in writing can help establish consistency or inconsistency in the witness's testimony.

Furthermore, if a witness becomes hostile during examination-in-chief or cross-examination by the opposing party, the court has the authority to grant permission for cross-examination. It is crucial for the court to carefully assess the witness's testimony before allowing cross-examination to ensure the integrity of the legal process.

Evidentiary Value of Hostile Witness Testimony

Two Views on Evidentiary Value

• The testimony of a hostile witness is debated in two perspectives.
• One viewpoint suggests the evidence holds certain value and should not be completely disregarded.
• Contrarily, the opposing stance argues that such testimony lacks value and should not be trusted.

Indian Judicial Stance

• Indian courts often align with the belief that the testimony of a hostile witness is unreliable.
• In the case of Keshoram Gora vs State of Assam, the Apex court highlighted that hostility alone does not justify rejecting the witness's testimony.
• Although the prosecution may declare a witness as hostile, it does not mean their statement represents the prosecution's viewpoint.

Evaluation of Hostile Witness Testimony

• A hostile witness's statement is not inherently false and must be evaluated for its credibility.
• Courts have the authority to consider the reliability of such testimony and potentially accept it as evidence.
• Both the prosecution and defense can use parts of a hostile witness's statement that support their respective cases.
• Mere hostility of a witness does not automatically invalidate their testimony; it can be considered if it aligns with the case's facts.

Reliability of Hostile Witness

• Testimony of Hostile Witness: When a prosecution witness becomes hostile during a trial and is cross-examined by the prosecutor with the court's permission, the law does not require us to completely disregard the witness's entire testimony. Even after being cross-examined, the evidence provided by a hostile witness is still considered valid and admissible in the trial process.
• Admissibility of Testimony: The testimony of a witness who turns hostile retains its evidentiary value despite the hostile behavior displayed during cross-examination. This means that the court can still consider and evaluate the information provided by the witness, even if they are uncooperative or contradictory.
• Impact on Trial: Although a witness may exhibit hostility and contradict their earlier statements during cross-examination, their testimony is not automatically discarded. The court analyzes the entire context, including the witness's behavior, to determine the weight and credibility of their statements in the trial proceedings.
• Legal Consideration: The case law cited highlights the importance of not outright rejecting the testimony of a hostile witness, emphasizing that cross-examination does not nullify the admissibility of their evidence. Instead, the court must assess the witness's statements within the broader legal framework of the trial.

Reasons for Witness Hostility in Trial Proceedings

• Inducement by various means.
• Use of muscle and money power by the accused.
• Use of Stock Witnesses.
• Protracted Trials.
• Hassles faced by the witnesses during investigation and trial.
• Non-existence of clear-cut legislation to check witness hostility.
• Disinclination to get involved with court proceedings.
• Fear of criminals or goondas.
• Sympathetic attitude toward accused.
• Bribe and corruption.
• Many rights for offenders, little privileges for the victims and witnesses.
• Lack of proper witness protection programs and identification of witnesses prone to hostility.

The primary reasons behind witness hostility in trials often involve coercion, threats, and a 'culture of compromise', as observed by the Apex Court. Witnesses may feel disrespected and helpless due to prolonged court processes and unchecked examinations.

Supreme Court Observations

In the case of Swaran Singh Vs. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court highlighted the challenges witnesses face, emphasizing the need for improved treatment and respect within the legal system.

Previous Cases Referenced

• Krishna Mochi v. State of Bihar, (2002) 6 SCC 81.
• Zahira Habibullah v. State of Gujarat, (2006) 3 SCC 374.
• Sakshi v. Union of India, (2004) 5 SCC 518.
• State v. Sanjeev Nanda, (2012) 8 SCC 450.

This HTML snippet provides a detailed paraphrased summary of the reasons why witnesses may turn hostile in trial proceedings, along with relevant insights from the Supreme Court and references to previous cases. The content is structured in a well-organized and visually appealing format to enhance understanding and retention.

Conclusion

• In conclusion, the phenomenon of witnesses turning hostile has become increasingly prevalent within the criminal justice system. A single false statement from a witness has the potential to dismantle the entire prosecution's case. The persistence of witness hostility, characterized by a reluctance to provide honest testimonies in court, poses a serious threat to the delivery of justice. Such instances erode public trust in the efficacy of the judicial system to deliver justice to victims, leading to a loss of faith in the judiciary's efficiency and credibility among the citizens.
• Witnesses may find themselves unable to speak the truth in court due to various uncontrollable factors. Threats, inducements, coercion, and financial incentives are among the reasons that compel witnesses to turn hostile, often at the behest of powerful individuals. This unfortunate reality results in truth and justice becoming casualties, raising concerns about the integrity of the legal process and its ability to serve the interests of justice.