 Good evening and on a weekday we thought why not have a session with a speaker like G. Karampaswamy Pandian and to facilitate the very intricate topic on the intricacies of posterity witness. We requested him and we had also done a session with him on a solitary witness. So I think that people feel in the beyond law that he can be a witness to a good sessions where there is a different topic and different perspectives, especially on the criminal perspective of law. I request Karampaswamy to share his insights over to you. Thank you so much Mr. Vikas. This is my second session. I feel so honored to share my knowledge in this reported forum. The topic which is assigned to me is nothing but intricacies on hostile witness. This topic is more popular in the side where the criminal practitioners are practicing. Hostile witness, this term, though it is unknown to the criminal law, but it is frequently and regularly using in the courts of law. And when we trace out what is mean by hostile witness and how the hostile witness can be proceeded with, the answer lies in section 154 and 155 of evidence act. And when we deal with the topic of hostile witness and we must go into the other sections namely 162 class 1 proviso class and also section 280 CRPC. So these are all the four provisions which are playing in the field in my view. And with the famous saying, I would start this, the true evidence, the person who is giving true evidence will be rewarded with an afterlife to the heaven. So the corollary is that perjury leads to hell. This is famous saying, with this when we see the evidentiary value or evidence of hostile witness, we should bear in mind the famous legal maxim, falses in omnibus. This maxim, according to which, falsing one thing and falsing everything. This maxim has no application in India. When we deal with the hostile witness and its evidentiary value, this maxim should have been bear in mind. The hostile witness which can be loosely called as adverse witness, unfavorable witness, unwilling witness, but all these terms are known to English law. But it is unknown to Indian law. When we see the distinction between the English law and the Indian law with regard to hostile witness, insofar as the English law is concerned, a party is not permitted to impeach the credit of its own witness. But in India, it is otherwise. A party is permitted with the permission of the court under section 154 and 155 of Evidence Act. He can question his own witness. This is what section 154 says. As per section 154 of Evidence Act, questioned by a party to his own witness. This is what the section starts. Here, I would read the provision for your convenience and for the better understanding. The court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any question to him, which might be in cross examination by the adverse party. Any question that terms assumes much importance, that term, because it has wider connotation. If the court permits, permission is signed or not to put question when a witness is not favorable to the party who is calling him. This is the thing. Any question, any question, which means a party who can put any question to the witness calling by him. Here, any question. This is very, very important. Only to call out the truth, any question can be put forth if it is in the name of cross examination. So, this is very, very important. And the second limb of section 154, that is 154 class 2, nothing in the section shall disentail the person so permitted subsection 1 to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness. So, law is quite clear and it is no longer rest integral in respect of appreciation of evidence of your hostile witness. Merely because a witness turns hostile, that evidence cannot be effaced of or passed off from the record. The portion which remains admissible, the portion which favours the prosecution that can be taken into consideration and there is no legal bar to base this conviction based on the part of the evidence. Because I already said falses in Amnibus is unknown to Indian criminal law. And the appreciation of hostile witness only will be arisen at the trial courts level. Trial judges are lynched in of the judiciary. Because of the reason that they are in direct contact with the litigants and also the witnesses. Under section 280 of CRPC, MNR of the witness has to be looked into. That is why the apex court time went again says the trial judge should not be a mute spectator and he must be an active umpire. This saying assumes significance here because if a witness comes into the witness box and goes on against the party who calling him. Even in the absence of a request made by the public prosecutor. The court by itself that is the trial court by itself can give permission to the public prosecutor to put questions. Only on seeing the demeanor of the witness and tone and tenor of the witness. So here the saying is assumes importance. And the first case law in this regard which is reported in 1975 Supreme Court, AER 1975 Supreme Court page number 1400. Chagir Singh versus state of Delhi administration. Though there is an earlier case law, but in respect of appreciation of evidence of fossil witness is concerned. From this judgment, the evidence of fossil witness kicks off its journey. The honorable apex court in this judgment held that when a witness who has been called by the prosecution is permitted to be crass examined on behalf of the prosecution. The results of that course being adopted is to discredit that witness altogether and not merely the Supreme Court set into 1975. According to that Supreme Court, according to the Supreme Court. The evidence of fossil witness. If it is permitted by the court to be declared as hostile, that wholesale rejection is permissible. That is what 1975 Supreme Court got. However, the very next year, the Supreme Court took a departure that is on 1976 AER 1976 Supreme Court to 294. This is the very, very, very important judgment. This judgment still falls in the field. Sadbal versus Delhi administration. Here, the honorable Supreme Court very categorically held. In a criminal prosecution, when a witness is crass examined and contradicted with the leave of the court by the party calling him his evidence cannot as a matter of law be treated as hostile. The record altogether. It is for the judge of fact to consider each case, whether as a result of cross examination and contradiction or can be still believed in regard to a part of his testimony. So, the earlier judgment was specifically overruled here in 1976. So, this is the settled law still now. And based on this proposition in section 154 class 2, that is class 2, which has been amended. This is the amendment provision. Where the 154 class 2, nothing in this section self-dissentatled the person so permitted under subsection 1 to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness. So, this 154 class 2, born out of that proposition of law that was held in the year of 1976. And 155 is also very relevant because the impeaching credit of witness, the credit of your witness may be impeached in the following ways by the adverse party. Or with the consent of the court by the party who calls here. We have to see with the consent of the court by the party who calls him if court permits the prosecutor to put questions. Then in the light of section 155 of evidence act, the witness credit worthy can be impeached. So, this is very, very important and I would take all of you to see section 162 class 1 where the proviso class, it is very clear. The proviso class reads as provided when any witness is called for the prosecution in such inquiry or trial whose statement has been reduced into writing. As of course said, any part of his statement if duly proved may be used by the accused and here it is very important with the permission of the court by the prosecution to contradict such witness in the manner provided by section 145 of the section. To contradict his own witness, what is necessary, the permission of the court, consent of the court according to section 154 of evidence act. So, this provision also plays in the field of dealing with the hostile witness. With this, the very proposition of law, still it is in the same line without any deviations so far. Recently, the Honorable Supreme Court that is Constitution bench in Neeraj Dutta case, Neeraj Dutta versus this is very recent judgment. Here, the Constitution bench of the Supreme Court reiterated and upheld the view of Sadbal Singh's case. And recently the Supreme Court held there is no legal bar to raise a conviction upon a hostile witness testimony if corroborated by other reliable evidence. Further, the Constitution bench has given a stamp of approval of the case, namely Sadbal versus state of Delhi administration. So, this is very, very important and declaring the witness as a hostile witness is not at the drop-off time. This is what Supreme Court did. Merely because the witness resides from his earlier statement. For that, the witness cannot be outrightly rejected or outrightly declared as hostile witness. This is what in Guras Singh versus state of Rajasthan that is reported in AIR 2001 Supreme Court 330 page number. Where the Supreme Court can declaring the witness as hostile is not at the drop-off time or for mere asking. And the famous English philosopher and jurist Jeremy Bandham who says witness is airs and eyes of justice. That is what he labeled the witness. According to him, witnesses are eyes and ears of justice. By quoting this quote in West Bakery case, the Supreme Court held if the witness himself incapacitated from acting eyes and ears of justice, the trial gets paralyzed. And it would be no longer a fair trial. This is what the Supreme Court called in Zagheera Kabibullah 6. This case is famously called as West Bakery case. And one more proposition also I would like to state. A hostile witness need not necessarily be a false witness. Merely because declaration of a hostile witness cannot be branded as false witness. This is what Supreme Court held in 2015 to SEC page number 662 Selvaraj Ali's Chinna Payyan versus state of Tamil Nadu. This is very very important case. And the one more famous judgment I would like to quote here. Rabindra Kumar, they versus state of Orissa AR 1977 Supreme Court page number 170. In this case, the Supreme Court held merely because a witness speaks the truth which may not suit the prosecution or which may be favorable to the accused. The discretion to allow the party concerned to cross examine its own witness cannot be allowed. So what the Supreme Court time one dug in says the 154 which gives sumoto power to the trial court and that power is untrammeled one. So that power has to be exercised judiciously. Even the prosecution is not seeking permission. The court can by using sumoto power ask the prosecutor to put questions and to proceed with section 154 of evidence act. So this is very very important. And in one case that is that was held by Madrasa I quote that to division bench. Kannan Ali's Mannanai Kannan versus state 2022 one MWN criminal page number 327. Where this case was handled by me. I was the counsel on recording this case. One counsel engaged me in a murder case on seeing the papers I got shocked. All the witnesses completely turn hostile lock stock and barrel. Even then trial court convicted the accused to the tune of life sentence. Appeal was preferred and the trial court proceeded to conduct the accused based on the. Reputation of 161 statement put forth by the prosecutor under the guise of cross examination. Ultimately the honorable high court that is division bench deprecated the practice of put forth in the 161 class 3 statement. Replica to the witness and last only one suggestion as if the witness is. Deposing falsely in this case. The honorable high court not only deprecated the practice of repeating the 161 three statement but also. Directed the state to conduct proper training program for the prosecution by engaging a senior criminal lawyers. So this is very very important mere repeating the statement contained in 161 class 3 CRPC by the prosecutor under the pretext of cross examination of witness could turn hostile can never be a substantive evidence. And it cannot be looked into that is what the honorable high court held. And in the RK day in that case one more proposition also emerged. The contingency of cross examining the witness by a party calling him is an extraordinary phenomenon. And permission should be given only in special cases. That is what Supreme Court held. And further it is called it may be rather difficult to lay down a rule of universal application as to when and in what circumstances the court will be entitled to exercise its discretion under section 154 of Indian evidence act. The matter will largely depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. This is what Supreme Court held. And one more judgment that was held earlier that is in the year of 1964 by the full bench of the Supreme Court. Daya boy, Chakan boy versus state of Gujarat where the Supreme Court held the court therefore can permit the person who calls a witness to put question to him. Which might be put into cross examination at any stage of the examination of witness provided. It takes care to give an opportunity to the accused to cross examine him and answer elicited which do not find place in the examination in chief. Even when you witness turns hostile or goes unfavor even at the stage of cross examination. The prosecution can seek permission and confront his own witness in the light of section 154 of evidence act. And the Metra Psycho in one judgment reiterated the proposition that is Romer versus state 2019 one MWN criminal page number 17. Where the Honorable Metra Psycho that is division bench felt that witness turning hostile not a ground to prevent court from finding accused guilty. If there is otherwise acceptable evidence in support of the prosecution case. So this is what the Supreme Court and also high courts held in respect of appreciation of hostile witness. Though that term is unknown to criminal law. If any witness goes unfavor to the party who calls him. He can seek permission from the court and confront that witness. In the name of confrontation. The party can put any questions to call out the truth. Here. The appreciation of evidence rule is very, very important. And. In respect of appreciation of evidence is concerned. The only one. Famous judgment. We should bear in mind. Especially in criminal side. What do you ever versus state of Metras. This is reported. In. 1957. Yeah. Yeah. Supreme Court page number 614. But the Supreme Court issued a guideline. How to appreciate the evidence. In a criminal case or in a criminal trial. There is. Three guidelines. One is. Holy reliable. Second is holy and reliable. For these two guidelines are concerned. There is no difficulty at all. If the evidence of their particular witness is wholly reliable. The court can rely upon and proceed to conduct. And the second guideline is concerned. The evidence of that particular witness is fully unreliable. Here also no difficulty. The court can simply discard. And proceed to occur. The third category. This is very, very important. Where. The trial codes. Are tossed. When you witness. And it's evidence. Neither holy reliable. Nor fully unreliable. Here the task is started. What the Supreme Court. In that particular case. The courts has to see. See the corroboration. The courts has to seek corroboration from the. Other independent sources. And proceed with. Here also this proposition applicable. If the hostile witness. Tenders. Evidence. Which. Partially. Looks credible. Or seems to be reliable. That can be corroborated with the other evidence. And the court can proceed to base connection. So in the realm of appreciation of evidence. The evidence of hostile witness. Assume some significance. And merely because your witness turns hostile. Or. Being unfavorable. There cannot be any wholesale rejection. The part which favors to be prosecution. And the part which favors to be defense. Can be taken into consideration. This is what. The earlier Supreme Court says. Judgment says. And. To that effect. Section 155. Class 2 also. Very candidly amended. And in respect of. The evidence of hostile witness. If. The prosecution. Is not. Seeking permission. To declare hostile. What would be the effect. Very categorically. Confirms the prosecution case in chief. However. In cross examination. That witness. Goes. Diamatically opposite. And so the defense case. This being the situation. In which what. What the court has to do. The Supreme Court. Even in the year of. 90. And. Answered. In one judgment. Javit. Masood. Versus state of Rajasthan. In that case. The Supreme Court. Very categorically. Witnesses not supporting the prosecution case. But supporting defense. However. Witness not declared hostile. There is. Nothing in law. The defense to rely on that evidence. So. The portion. Which should the defense case. Can be relied upon because there is no. Interdict in the. Act. That is evidence act. So this is the. Outline of the evidence of hostile witness. And. Now let us have the interaction. Because sir. Yeah, there was some power failure. So the host had changed. Okay, no problem. Let us have the interaction session. Any questions in this regard. I don't think there is any question. I will just check it out on the YouTube. Because people are more watching on the YouTube. Okay. Except when. Vinod Kumar has written. You are our beloved mentor. Yes sir. Except for one Vinod Kumar has written. That you are our beloved mentor. Yeah. Okay, you can put any question. Can we rely partly. On the testimony of a witness. Before he's declared for style after so. After he's been declared. Yes. If the witness is declared hostile. Even the part which favors to the prosecution. Or the defense. That can be taken into consideration. Really because you witness is declared hostile. There cannot be any wholesale risks. This is the settle the law. Yeah. So. Thank you for sharing your knowledge. And on a weekday it was quite. That people watching lot on the YouTube. Thank you for sharing your knowledge. Thank you so much. Thank you so much.