Inconvenient Answer Isn't Hostility; Prosecution Can't Cross-Examine Own Witness: Karnataka High Court In Renukaswamy Murder Case

The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while upholding the trial court's order, held that a witness cannot be subjected to cross-examination by the party that called her merely because of a 'stray answer' or 'inconvenient' testimony.

“…A witness does not become hostile merely because every syllable uttered by the said witness does not march to the drumbeat of the party who summoned him. Nor does Section 154 of the Evidence Act confer upon a party an automatic right to cross-examine its own witness whenever an answer turns inconvenient. Inconvenience is not hostility; discrepancy is not disloyalty; and an isolated departure is not necessarily an abandonment of the case. Something more must be demonstrated before the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 154 of the Evidence Act can be invoked…”, the court opined.

The Court emphasized that such an extraordinary step under Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, cannot be permitted in a casual or routine manner.

“…She [PW1] has not completely departed from what she stated in her examination-in-chief; nor has she disowned the substratum of the prosecution case. There is no demonstrable transfer of loyalty from the prosecution to the defence. What is sought to be projected as hostility is, at best, a stray statement made in the course of deposition-an answer at an unguarded moment. A stray answer cannot be elevated into a wholesale abandonment of the prosecution case….”, the court said.

The court noted that the mother's testimony had not exhibited any hostile animus towards the prosecution case. The Court then went on to distinguish between a witness who has 'truly turned adverse' and one whose testimony merely contains 'an answer inconvenient to the party calling him'.

“…on a cumulative consideration of the deposition of PW-1[mother] , her examination-in-chief and cross-examination, and the law declared by the Apex Court…no circumstance emerges which could compel, or even warrant, exercise of discretion under Section 154 of the Evidence Act. A stray statement cannot be metamorphosed into hostility, nor can an unguarded answer become a passport for the prosecution to cross-examine its own witness”, the court noted in the order.

The Court relied on many apex court judgments, including Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration (1975) and Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa (1976), to iterate that the discretion to permit cross-examination of one's own witness must be permitted by the court judiciously.

“…. If every inconvenient answer, minor deviation or stray omission were sufficient to open the doors of Section 154 of the Evidence Act, examination-in-chief would cease to retain its character. A party could summon its witness, wait for an answer not entirely to its liking and then seek permission to put leading questions under the guise of cross-examination. Section 154 of the Evidence Act would then cease to be an exceptional procedural safeguard and become a convenient device to repair perceived deficiencies in examination-in-chief…”, the court clarified.

Specifically, about the state's plea to invoke Section 154, the Court stated that the provision, albeit with some caveats, is an exception to the general rule that a party cannot cross-examine its own witness. However, the court clarified that this exception cannot be permitted to 'casually swallow the rule'.

“…the law does not insist upon the ritualistic declaration of a witness as “hostile” before permission under Section 154... The nomenclature is not decisive; the circumstances are. But the absence of any statutory requirement of a formal declaration cannot be converted into an unrestricted licence to cross-examine one's own witness. The discretion remains hedged by judicial discipline. The Court must find circumstances warranting such departure from the ordinary mode of examination, and those circumstances must emerge from the conduct and testimony of the witness viewed as a whole”, the court noted further.

While dismissing the plea, the court also emphasised that the prosecution had not availed of the remedy of re-examination to clarify any ambiguities that arose during the defence's cross-examination, and had let the opportunity pass.

“…Section 154 of the Evidence Act cannot become a procedural second innings merely because the first was not played to the satisfaction of the party calling the witness…”, the court said.

Consequently, noting that minor inconsistencies cannot be aground to grant the right to proceed under Section 154, the criminal petition filed by the State was dismissed.

Context

To recap, the Karnataka High Court had in June orally remarked that it will consider whether clarificatory questions which are leading in nature can be asked to a prosecution witness in Renuka Swamy murder case, without declaring the witness hostile.

The prosecution had moved the trial court seeking permission to cross-examine PW-1, the victim's mother, after her deposition during defence cross-examination allegedly contained contradictions. After the trial court rejected the oral plea, the state approached the High Court.

The trial court proceedings pertaining to the Renukaswamy Murder are currently in progress before the City Civil and Sessions Court.

Actor Darshan is accused of being involved in the killing of his 33-year-old 'fan' over sending obscene messages to actress Pavithra Gowda. Darshan had allegedly abducted the deceased from Chitradurga and had him tortured for three days in a shed in Bengaluru in June 2024. The deceased later succumbed to the abuse, with his body thrown out in a drain as per the police report.

Darshan and 16 others have been charged for offences punishable under Section 120B, (Conspiracy), 201 (destruction of evidence), 364 (Abduction/kidnapping), 302 (murder) and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They were granted bail by the high court in December 2024, which was cancelled by the Supreme Court in August 2025.

Before the High Court, the State had contended that the witness's testimony during cross-examination was contradictory to documentary evidence on record, particularly Call Detail Records (CDR), and sought permission to question her under Section 154 to obtain an explanation.

Emphasising that the State did not seek to have PW1 declared hostile, Special Public Prosecutor Prasanna Kumar submitted that the purpose of seeking permission under Section 154 was to obtain an explanation from her regarding her statements.

Senior Counsel Hasmath Pasha, appearing for Darshan, opposed the State's plea, contending that the deceased's mother had supported the prosecution's case and had not turned hostile merely because she made certain admissions during the accused's cross-examination.

He argued that a witness could not be treated as hostile simply because, 'in an unguarded moment', the witness said something adverse to the prosecution.

Case Title: State of Karnataka v/s Pavitra Gowda & Ors.

Case No: CRL.P No. 6820/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 308

Click Here To Read/Download Order