Evidence Of Hostile Witness Cross-Examined By Prosecution Can't Be Discarded Fully; Court Must Assess What Can Be Accepted : Supreme Court

While confirming the convictions of eleven accused persons in the 'Kannagi-Murugesan' honour killing case from Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court held that just because a witness has supported some, though not all, aspects of a case, it would not automatically mean that the witness has to be declared as 'hostile'.A bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and PK Mishra dismissed the appeals filed by eleven convicts challenging the Madras High Court's 2022 judgment, which upheld their life sentence. The Court also dismissed the appeals filed by two policemen for fabricating evidence.While holding so, the Supreme Court responded to the defence's argument that many witnesses over the years turned hostile because they contradicted their own statement made before the police and in some cases, before the magistrate. The Court said that when a witness contradicts the story of the side for which he/she is a witness, it is ultimately for the Court to decide whether the statement has to be accepted or not."The phrase 'hostile witness' is commonly used in criminal jurisprudence and court proceedings. We too cannot escape the blame of using the term 'hostile witness' in our judgment. We do it for pragmatic reasons. Some words like 'hostile witness' in this case are now a part of our legal vocabulary. There is no point in inventing or substituting new words or phrases, at least in the present case, and we leave that for the future. But what is necessary, however, is to explain the meaning of the term as it is now to be understood. The phrase 'hostile witness' has come to be used for a witness who gives a statement contrary to the story of the side for which he/she is a witness. All the same, because a witness has supported some, though not all, aspects of a case, it would not automatically mean that this witness has to be declared 'hostile'."A party can cross-examine its own witness under Section 154 Evidence Act, even without getting a declaration of 'hostility'. The only restriction to cross-examination under Section 154 Evidence Act is that the party, who seeks to cross-examine its own witness, must obtain the leave of the Court. Whether there is a declaration of 'hostility' or not, one thing is clear that evidence of witness, who has been cross-examined under Section 154 Evidence Act by the party who called such witness, cannot be washed off entirely and it is for the Court to see what can be retrieved from such evidence."Evidence cannot be rejected merely because witness turned hostileThe Court further stated that when the Courts can rely upon the part of the deposition of a hostile witness which is corroborated by other evidence on record. There is no specific bar under the Evidence Act which mandates that such evidence has to be discarded. Thus, it would form part of the entire evidence which the Court can examine while arriving at its decision, and it is for the Court to determine what value has to be given to that piece of evidence or how such evidence has to be used in a given case."If part of the evidence of a hostile witness corroborates with other reliable evidence, then that part of the evidence is admissible. Once a prosecution witness has been declared hostile and then cross-examined by the prosecution, then it is for the Court to evaluate the veracity of the testimony."The Court remarked that one of the reasons for the witnesses turning hostile is often the delay in the trial. In this case, the incident happened in 2003, and the case was committed to the Sessions Court only in 2010 and the charges were framed in 2017. Finally, the judgment was pronounced in 2021 after a delay of 18 years.Additionally, the Court also rejected the arguments of the defence that the prosecution witnesses were mostly the husband's family members and therefore, they were interested witnesses.The case involved the dastardly murder of a young inter-caste couple, S Murugesan and D Kannagi, who were poisoned by the girl's father and brother.Murugesan was a graduate in Chemical Engineering and belonged to the Dalit Community. Kannagi was a commerce graduate and belonged to the Vanniyar community. The couple were secretly married on May 5, 2003. When Kannagi's family came to know of the marriage, they apprehended the couple on July 7, 2003, just as they were about to leave town and made the couple drink insecticide(poison), which resulted in their death. Their bodies were later burned.The murder of the couple was regarded as one of the first case of "Honour Killing" in the State of Tamil Nadu. The investigation of the case was handed over to the CBI after a botched police investigation.In 2021, the trial court awarded death sentence to Marudupandian, Kannagi's brother, and sentenced 12 others, including her father, to life imprisonment. In 2022, the Madras High Court commuted the death sentence of Marudupandian to a life sentence and confirmed the life sentence of ten others, including her father. Two persons were acquitted. Today,...

Evidence Of Hostile Witness Cross-Examined By Prosecution Can't Be Discarded Fully; Court Must Assess What Can Be Accepted : Supreme Court

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

Tags