Renukaswamy Murder Case | Witness Speaking Against Prosecution In An Unguarded Moment Not 'Hostile': Darshan To Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (August 12) reserved its orders on a crucial legal question arising in the Renukaswamy murder case involving actors Darshan and Pavitra Gowda—whether the prosecution can cross-examine its own witness under Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, without first having the witness declared hostile.

A single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna heard the State's challenge to a trial court order rejecting its application seeking permission to partly cross-examine PW1, the mother of the deceased Renukaswamy, without declaring her hostile.

The State 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.

Special Public Prosecutor Prasanna Kumar submitted that while PW1 had stated during cross-examination that she had not received any call from her son during the relevant period, the CDR showed calls of 27 and 47 seconds between her phone and the deceased's phone on the date of the incident.

The State further pointed to alleged contradictions in the witness' statements before the Police Commissioner and during the inquest proceedings.

"When I sought permission under Section 154 of Evidence Act before the trial court, A2 contended that she had only made 3 statements - where are the other 2? It's not just one statement that she has given. There are major contradictions," the SPP submitted.

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

“…I don't want to declare her hostile. I want explanation from her," the State submitted.

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.

“…. The adverse parties posed certain questions, she had given admissions, that has been recorded. Those admissions are not required clarification even at the stage of re-examination… If at all there is any ambiguity, there was re-examination. Re-examination was nil”, Pasha submitted.

He also referred to the scope of re-examination under Section 138 of the Evidence Act, contending that leading questions cannot ordinarily be put at that stage to enlarge or amplify its scope.

He submitted that there was no ambiguity in PW1's testimony warranting re-examination and that she had not contradicted her examination-in-chief. According to him, she had merely made certain admissions to questions put by the defence during cross-examination, which was meant to test the veracity of the witness.

Counsel Ranganath Reddy, appearing for some of the other accused, similarly argued that admissions elicited during cross-examination could not be undone merely because they were adverse to the prosecution.

'…Merely because the witness in an unguarded movement speaks something adverse to the prosecution, the admissions acquired in cross examination cannot be ambushed …in totality, if the deposition of the mother is looked into, why should she be an adverse party to the party calling her? She has lost her son after all. It has to be considered holistically, not bits and pieces here and there…”.

The State, however, maintained that the alleged contradiction was between the witness's oral testimony and technical documentary evidence.

Justice Nagaprasanna, after hearing both sides, observed that “examination and cross-examination are stubborn facts, it can't be demolished easily….”

The Court noted that Section 154 permits cross-examination by the party calling a witness with the Court's permission, while also observing that cross-examination and re-examination operate within their respective legal contours. The judge indicated that the trial court could have considered permitting re-examination instead of cross-examination under Section 154.

“…If you want to re-examine, within the contours of law, you can re-examine, but you can't put leading questions to your own witness…”, the Court told the state further.

The Court then reserved its orders on the State's plea.

For context, the trial court had rejected the State's application on the ground that without treating the prosecution witness as hostile, part cross-examination under Section 154 cannot be permitted. However, the High Court had earlier made a prima facie observation that that this position 'flies foul' of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of K.P. Tamilmaran v. State by Deputy Superintendent of Police(2025).

In Tamilmaran, the Supreme Court had held that a party can cross-examine its own witness under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, even without obtaining a declaration of 'hostility', provided the court grants leave.

Background

The Renukaswamy murder case involves actor Darshan and 16 others accused of killing a 33-year-old fan who allegedly sent obscene messages to actress Pavitra Gowda. According to police reports, the deceased was abducted from Chitradurga and tortured for three days in a shed in Bengaluru in June 2024, before succumbing to the abuse. His body was allegedly dumped in a drain.

The accused have been charged under Sections 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 later cancelled by the Supreme Court in August 2025.

Last week, some of the other accused such as V Vinay and Pradosh Rao, alleged aides of Darshan, had filed applications before the trial court to become witnesses in the murder case. The prosecution had recently given consent for Pradosh to be considered as a witness for pardon.

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

Case No: CRL.P No. 6820/2026