Introduction

• This is an important case on the concept of hostile witness.

Facts

• The public prosecutor sought to designate a witness as hostile because the witness provided answers favoring the defence during cross-examination.
• However, the trial judge refused to allow the public prosecutor to cross-examine the witness, as per the judge's order.
• Subsequently, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which was handling the prosecution, brought the matter before the High Court, but the HC declined to intervene.
• During the testimony, the witness mentioned a document executed in 1993, labeling it as a sale deed.
• Initially, in the chief examination, the witness claimed to have received consideration for it in 1983.
• However, during cross-examination, the witness provided further details regarding how he received the consideration.
• It was only after the cross-examination concluded that the public prosecutor requested permission to treat the witness as hostile.
  • Notably, the public prosecutor did not seek permission from the trial court to cross-examine the witness at the conclusion of the chief examination.
• Consequently, the trial judge declined to exercise discretion under Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA), as the request came after cross-examination.
  • The HC upheld the trial court's decision.
• Subsequently, the CBI., as the prosecuting authority, appealed to the Supreme Court through a special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Issue Involved

• Whether the public prosecutor can obtain permission of the Court to examine his own witness at any stage of the trial.

Observations

• The Court held the authority to decide whether to grant permission under Section 154 of IEA is of court itself.
• Traditionally, when the public prosecutor requests permission to cross-examine a witness brought by them, the court typically grants it.
• However, in this case, the public prosecutor failed to seek permission at the conclusion of the chief examination, leading the trial judge to decline exercising discretion when permission was sought after cross-examination.
• During cross-examination, the witness reiterated details already presented in the chief examination but displayed a bias favoring the opposing party.
• However, seeking permission post-cross-examination suggests the prosecutor's reluctance to endorse the witness's entire testimony, was enough to indicate his resolve, not to own all what the witness said in his evidence.
• Therefore, the court need not consider recalling the witness for further cross-examination, given the available options for the prosecutor to disclaim specific witness testimony during final deliberations.

Conclusion

• The SC disposed off the appeal with these observations.

Note

• Section 154 of the IEA: Question by party to his own witness. – 
  • The Court may, in its discretion. permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.