A hostile
witness is one who after giving oath, is not willing to speak the truth before
the court and gives a testimony that is adverse to the party calling the witness.
In the matter of: Devraj v. State of Chhattisgarh- the Supreme Court
noticed the following:
In a three-Judge bench judgment of this Court in Bhagwan Singh v. State of
Haryana, (1976) 1 SCC 389, the witness Jagat Singh was declared
hostile. The appellant was convicted under Section 165A IPC. It was contended
that the whole case is destroyed since the witness was declared as hostile. In
the aforesaid decision the Court held that there is no legal bar to base a
conviction upon his testimony if corroborated by other reliable evidence.
We have carefully perused the
evidence of Jagat Singh, who was examined in the trial after more than a year
of detection of the case. The prosecution could have even avoided requesting
for permission to cross-examine the witness under Section 154 of the Evidence
Act. But the fact that the court gave permission to the prosecutor to
cross-examine his own witness, thus characterising him as, what is described as
a hostile witness, does not completely efface his evidence. 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. We are satisfied
in this case that the evidence of Jagat Singh, but for whose prompt assistance
the case would not have seen the light of day and whose statement had
immediately been recorded by the D.S.P., is amply corroborated by other
evidence mentioned above to inspire confidence in his testimony. Apart from
that the fact of recovery of the gold coins in the pocket of the appellant gave
a seal of finality to the truth of the charge against the appellant. If Jagat
Singh had accepted the bribe he would have been guilty under Section 161 IPC.
There is, therefore, clear abetment by the appellant of the offence under
Section 161 IPC and the ingredients of Section 165-A IPC are established
against him.
It was even noted by the top court that :
Another judgment which needs to
be noted is Khujji v. State of M.P., (1991) 3 SCC 627. This Court in the above
case held that merely because a witness was declared hostile, his entire
evidence cannot be treated as effaced from the record,his testimony, to the
extent found reliable, can be acted upon. Following was observed:
The evidence of PW 3 Kishan Lal
and PW 4 Ramesh came to be rejected by the trial court because they were
declared hostile to the prosecution by the learned Public Prosecutor as they
refused to identify the appellant and his companions in the dock as the
assailants of the deceased. But counsel for the State is right when he submits
that the evidence of a witness, declared hostile, is not wholly effaced from
the record and that part of the evidence which is otherwise acceptable can be
acted upon. It seems to be well settled by the decisions of this Court, Bhagwan
Singh v. State of Haryana,(1976) 1 SCC 389, Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State of
Orissa, (1976) 4 SCC 233 and Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka,(1980) 1 SCC 30,
that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely
because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross-examined him.
The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the
record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent their version is
found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof.
Thereafter, the court also observed the following in the same case:
The above propositions have again been reiterated by this Court in Vinod Kumar vs. State of
Punjab, (2015) 3 SCC 220, following has been stated:
The next aspect which requires
to be adverted to is whether testimony of a hostile evidence that has come on
record should be relied upon or not. Mr. Jain, learned senior counsel for the
appellant would contend that as PW-7 has totally resiled in his
cross-examination, his evidence is to be discarded in toto. On a perusal of the
testimony of the said witness, it is evincible that in examination-in-chief, he
has supported the prosecution story in entirety and in the cross-examination,
he has taken the path of prevarication. In Bhagwan Singh V. State of
Haryana, (1976) 1 SCC 389,
it has been laid down that even if a witness is characterized has a hostile
witness, his evidence is not completely effaced. The said 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. In Khuji @ Surendra Tiwari V.
State of Madhya Pradesh, (1991) 3 SCC 627, the Court after
referring to the authorities in Bhagwan Singh (supra), Rabindra Kumar Dey V. State of Orissa, (1976) 4 SCC 233 and Syad Akbar V. State of Karnataka,(1980)
1 SCC 30, opined that the evidence of such a witness cannot be effaced
or washed off the record altogether, but the same can be accepted to the extent
it is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof.
The following was noted by the Apex Court:
The evidence of a witness who
has been declared hostile can be relied if there are some other material on the
basis of which said evidence can be corroborated. More so, that part of
evidence of a witness as contained in examination-in-chief, which remains unshaken
even after cross-examination, is fully reliable even though the witness has
been declared hostile.
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks