Section 137 649) 17 gpd Hostile Witness is “hostile”, “ad ” 4 o WAM erns “hostile “adverse” or “unfivouale me Acts The terme “hostile witnese’, “a ‘ tee are rie ci Indian Memes ese” ate a bark, verse witnese”, “unfavourable witnese wing wines ave al cts of Ppl tw, The ule af mow peeing rare alg Wraness 10 CEOSSENAMINC ate rehved nor ess and unlavonn Under the common is not desirone of telling the tath 1 devand an unlavoatable witness one called hy a pray ea Fant tthe ise who Fails 6 prove such mi aosscnamine the witnesses hy hep Metndian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 142 1 the witness in exantination-in-chief or in ee the common law hy evolving the rerme rset ble witness” wad as ane whe the instance of che party callin, Prove a particular Fact in ieste of fact, or proves the apposire rest. fn India che ty calling him i governed by the prowisions of equites that leading question cannoe be put eo ‘i examination except with the permission of th court, The court can permit leading question as to the matters which are introductory oF undipated or which have, in its opinion, already been sufficiently proved. Section 15 authorises the court in its discretion to permit the person sh gpestion to him which might be put in cross-examination by arc under a legal obligation to exercise the discretion vesting in them in 4 judicious manner by proper application of mind and keeping in view the attending circumstances. Permission forcross-examination in terms of section 154 of the Evidence Act cannot and should not be granted at the mere asking of the party calling the witness.” Mere declaration of inten that he would intend to file an application to treat the witness as hostile without askin Cour for permission to cross-examine his witness would not attract the provisions of secsion 134 of the Evidence Act.” Extensively dealing with the terms “hostile, adverse and unfavourable witnesses” and the object of the provisions of the Evidence Act the Supreme Coure in Sat Paul v Delhi Admn.!” stated that in the order granting such permission, ies Preferable to avoid the use of such expressions, sch as ‘declared hostile’, “declared unfavourable’, the significance of which is still not fice from the historical cobwebs which, in their wake bring a misleading legacy of confusion, and conflict that had wo long vexed the English Courts. The Court further said that it is important to note that the English ature differs ‘materially from the law contained in the Indian Evidence Act in regard to crose- examination 4nd contradiction of his own witness by a party. Under the English law, a party noe Permitted to impeach the credit of his own witness by gencral evidence of his bad character, 'y antecedents or previous conviction. In India, this can be done with the consent af the ‘Patt under section 155, Under the English Act of 186 Aun examine’ and contradict a witness in respect of his previous inconsistent seatemenes th the leave of the court, only when the court consider the witness to be “ulvene Ay 'y noticed, no such condition has been laid down in sections 144 06 19S of the Act we Sections 157 or 158 of the Adhiniyam, 2023) and the grant of yush leave has been lett eepPty 10 the discretion of the cout the aves of hh, tra yo Bviden, ‘ML upon the ‘hostility’ oF ‘advenscney’ of the witness, La dues expect, che Indian Na Acts in advance ofthe Fnglish lv stil, Ment rec 10 calls a witness to put any he adverse party. The courts on sa party calling the witness can, When a witness deposes contary «the stand of the prosecution aad his own ‘orded under section 101 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 74 (now, section, Atel Sigh State of Rajasthan, (2001) 2 SCC 209 AIK 2001 9C 8 CNUE Ce Lf asp V5 sarin Kavi v Mariam Raja Yebutsh, AUR 2017 Hyd 9. : " Paul v Delhi Admn, (1976) 1 SCC T27 x AIR A976 SC BH ATO CL) 295, hh‘vamination of Witnes 650 Section 157 _ — ; “hua, 2023) the presen, with the permis 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarike Survie a aring, that witness he for granting leavs of the Court, ean pray to the Court ot sigsion is granted by the Court, then pet e remosecutar as well 8 CPPOTLINty is prow ation et i he so deses. [nother words, they tothe wefee ro cow exmine se egecutor and coss-examinain lime examination inch ile to use the exaininationinvchief as wal counsel for the accused sa aa ase of the prosecution," imc hy esl ae ont fe cin ore th « taming hostile were neighbours of the accused, the possi fT che witnesses tuning. hos ighhours of the acousstl fhe. ee eke could not be ruled out, Their statemene would hav carry ay a a for witness eo cor hostile fier dhe death of the victim (ore weight.” Teis common for witnesses € poled eee! peer to it) for a variety of reasons. Besides other factors, witn x pion the deceased i ? hostile because they wish to move on with their lives. Testifying as to the A ec esmnding the rape and death of a loved one can be a deeply traumatizing samstances surfoUn ape and dea redone. ra sah he criminal justice system, event, which is only compounded by the slow pace of tl i! y' In Ramesh Harijan v State of Uttar Pradesh"” it was held that the evidence of ; prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose t6 tex him as hostile and cross-examine 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 thar their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof. In Jodbraj Singh v State of Rajasthan,” the Court emphasis that only because a witnes, for one reason or the other, has, to some extent, resiled from his earlier statement by itself may not be sufficient to discard the prosecution case in its entirety. The courts even in such a situation are not powerless. Keeping in view the materials available on record, ic is permissible for a court of law to rely upon a part of the testimony of the witness who has been declared hostile. wthe Court while deciding the issue in pédha Mohan Singh State of Uttar Praeh” observed that it is well-settled that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be reject! in to10 merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross-examined hist. ‘The evidence of such witness cannot be treated as effaced ot washed off the record altogether bur the same can be accepted to the extent his version is found to be dependable on a ciel scrutiny thereof. _In Rajendra v State of Uttar Pradesh” the Supreme Court observed that merely bectus? witness deviates ftom his statement made in the FIR, his evidence cannot be held © & wal iy sata The Cour reeraed a similar view in Govindappa v State of Kare 1 deposition of a hostile wi ie cot he supported the case of che prosecution, Sa" Be felled upon at least up co the et fumes, W such 3 amination by the to cross-examine the said witness is subjected to cross far as it ———__—_—_______ 194, Bhajju v State of Madhya Pradesh, 2 - Bh by + 2012 AIR SCW 1963 : 2012 Cr LJ 1926 : (2012) 4 SCC 327 195, Hin v State of Ass 185 Si 201321) 250201 AIR SCW 817 : (2012) 1 197. Ramesh Harijan w Sute of Unar Prades 201s ge O33 AUR 202. ip ij tate of Ustar Pradesh, 2012 Al aaa 198. Jodbraj Singh v State of Rajasthan, (200 Rajasthan, (2007) 15 SCC 294 ; E 199. Radha Mohan Singh v State of Unar py 207 AIR SC £2007 Cel} PRs poate °F Una Pradeth, 2006) 2:SCC 490 AR 2006 80951: 6 ARS ajendra v State of Ustar Pradesh, (2009) 201. Govindappa v State of Karnataka, 20\0 an 759 9g AlR 2009 sc.2558 2009 ain scw A” 1) 3439: 2010 AIR SCW 3702 ; (2010) 6 SCC 533: 5) 213 (para? ce sC (Criminal) 70. RSCW 2990 : 2012 Cr LJ 2914 : AIR 20 126