Testimony Cannot Be Rejected Solely Because Witness Is Declared Hostile, Consistent Portions Can Be Relied Upon : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday (December 8) held that the testimony of a witness cannot be outrightly rejected solely by declaring a witness a hostile witness. The Court said that a portion of the testimony which is consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence may be accepted.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih heard the case where the appellants were convicted by the trial court under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 354 (outraging modesty) of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act. The prosecution's case alleged that the Appellants-accused had approached the victim at her residence, pulled her dupatta, assaulted her brother, and committed the acts knowing she belonged to a Scheduled Caste. The trial court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the convictions, prompting the appeal before the Supreme Court.

However, PW-4, a relative of the victim and her brother, who was declared hostile by the prosecution, presented an alternate narrative. He stated that the incident did not occur at the victim's house but instead originated at a crowded Ganesh Puja pandal, where a scuffle broke out after the victim's brother (PW-2) felt the accused had stepped on his feet.

According to PW-4, this scuffle was the real cause of the altercation, not the alleged events at the victim's home. Even during cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor, PW-4 remained steadfast in his account, denying that the accused had assaulted PW-2 in the manner asserted by the prosecution.

Before the Supreme Court, a crucial point came across that while upholding the appellant's conviction, the High Court had refused to give weightage to the PW-4 testimony by declaring him to be hostile to the prosecution.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Datta observed that the High Court committed an error in outrightly rejecting the PW-4's testimony by declaring him to be hostile. It said that the hostile witness testimony remains admissible and must be evaluated for truthful portions.

The Court noted that PW-4's presentation of an alternative version of events was not, by itself, a valid ground to discard his evidence, particularly when his account remained consistent throughout the trial.

“it is settled law that the evidence of a hostile witness would not be totally rejected if spoken in favour of either the prosecution or the accused. It would rather have to be subjected to closer scrutiny and that portion of the evidence which is consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence may be accepted.”, the court said, citing State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra, (1996) 10 SCC 360.

"The mere rejection of the evidence of PW4 in the manner aforesaid is contrary to the law laid down by this Court.", the court held.

In terms of the aforesaid, the court allowed the appeal, and the appellants were acquitted.

Cause Title: DADU @ ANKUSH & ANR. VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1178

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Samyak Jain, Adv. Mr. Rajat Sehgal, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Mr. B. P. Singh, D.A.G. Mr. Aditya Vaibhav Singh GA, Adv. Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, AOR Mr. Nakul Nirwan, Adv. Mr. Anil Gaur, Adv.