The Supreme Court ruled that hostile witnesses’ testimony should not be entirely dismissed. The Court emphasized that even if a witness turns hostile, the prosecution can still use portions of their testimony that are supportive of the case. This ensures that relevant evidence is not disregarded simply due to a witness’s change in stance. The decision highlights the importance of carefully evaluating witness statements for their value in a trial.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court stated that the mere fact that witnesses become hostile during criminal trials does not automatically warrant the complete rejection of their testimony.
The three-judge bench, which included Justices BR Gavai, KV Viswanathan, and N Kotiswar Singh, noted that any part of the evidence provided by such hostile witnesses that Supports the prosecution’s case can still be taken into account.
The Court remarked,
“Just because witnesses turn hostile does not mean their evidence must be entirely disregarded; what supports the prosecution can certainly be utilized,”
The Court made a significant observation while declining to acquit two of the three individuals charged with assaulting a man in 2001, which ultimately led to his death. During the trial, many witnesses became hostile.
However, upon reviewing the case records, the Supreme Court suggested that this change in testimony may have been an effort to protect the convicts, who were familiar to the witnesses.
The Court noted,
“We have also noted the testimonies of other neighbours, which we consider to be highly unnatural and untruthful… The reasonable inference one can draw is that these witnesses have been won over.”
Ultimately, the Court partially granted the appeal from the two convicts, reducing their murder conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Having served 10 years and 3 months in prison while their appeals were pending, they were sentenced to time already served. They had previously been released on bail in 2012 after appealing in 2011. The final judgment allows them to remain free if they pay a fine of Rs. 50,000 each to the deceased man’s mother, with a six-month imprisonment term for non-payment.
This case stemmed from a 2009 Chhattisgarh High Court ruling regarding the assault and subsequent death of Suraj in 2001. While the High Court upheld the life sentences of Govardhan and Rajendra, it acquitted their father, Chintaram, the third accused.
In their appeal, Govardhan and Rajendra contended that most prosecution witnesses had turned hostile and that their mother was pressured into her statements, which they argued lacked sufficient corroboration. They also claimed that since Chintaram was acquitted based on the same evidence, the principle of parity should apply to their case.
The Court, however, dismissed these arguments. Referencing the case of Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa, the Court emphasized that a conviction can still stand despite deficiencies in prosecution evidence if sufficient evidence remains to establish guilt, irrespective of a co-accused’s acquittal.
The Court clarified its duty to differentiate between reliable and unreliable evidence, stating that Chintaram’s acquittal did not warrant that of his sons. It found ample evidence to confirm the appellants’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt and elaborated on the meaning of “reasonable doubt”
As noted in Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai,
“It means that such doubt must be free from suppositional speculation… A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense,”
Despite minor inconsistencies in the mother’s testimony, the Court deemed her account of the incident consistent and credible, thus finding no grounds to overturn the appellants’ convictions.
In Indian law, hostile witnesses refer to those witnesses who, during trial, fail to support the case of the party who has called them or whose testimony is inconsistent with their earlier statements. A hostile witness may be cross-examined by the party that called them, and their evidence can be used to discredit the party’s case.
Here are the relevant legal provisions and principles related to hostile witnesses:
1. Indian Evidence Act, 1872
- Section 154: This section specifically deals with the treatment of hostile witnesses. It allows the party who called a witness to cross-examine them if the witness is declared hostile by the court. The witness may be questioned about their previous statements to show contradictions.
- Section 154: “The court may, in its discretion, permit the person who called the witness to cross-examine him.”
2. Section 145 (Impeachment of Witnesses)
- Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act permits the questioning of a witness about previous statements made by them, even if the witness is hostile. This can be used to impeach the credibility of the witness.
- If a witness gives contradictory evidence or fails to support their earlier statements, they may be declared hostile, and their earlier statements can be used as evidence.
3. Section 33 (Relevancy of Statements in Certain Cases)
- Section 33 allows a previous statement made by a witness (which is inconsistent with their testimony) to be used as evidence if the witness is unavailable. Even if the witness is hostile, their previous statement recorded by police or magistrates may be admissible in evidence under this provision.
4. Supreme Court and High Court Rulings
- Indian courts have consistently held that the evidence of a hostile witness is not automatically discarded. The testimony may still be admissible, but it is treated with caution. The court is allowed to rely on such testimony if it is corroborated by other evidence or if there are parts of the witness’s testimony that remain consistent with the facts of the case.
6. Role of a Hostile Witness
- Despite being hostile, a witness can provide valuable information, and the court may evaluate their testimony along with other evidence presented during the trial. A hostile witness does not necessarily render the case of the calling party weak, but their credibility becomes questionable, and their statement may be disregarded if not corroborated by other evidence.
These provisions aim to ensure that even if a witness turns hostile, their statements and earlier depositions may still be used to further the case.
Case Title: Goverdhan & Anr v State of Chhattisgarh