![]() ![]() In Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and another v. In the appropriate cases, the Court can rely upon the part of the testimony of such witness of that part of disposition is found to be creditworthy. It is for the Court to consider in each case whether as a result of such cross-examination. In a criminal trial when the prosecution witness is cross-examined and contradicted with the leave of the Court by the party calling him for evidence cannot as a matter of general rule be treated wasted off the record altogether. State of Rajasthan, it was held by Supreme Court that, it is misconceived notion that merely because a witness is declared hostile, his entire evidence should be excluded or rendered unworthy of consideration. ![]() It remains admissible in the trial and there is no legal bar to base his conviction upon his testimony if corroborated by other reliable evidence.” Evidence of such a witness cannot be treated as a waste of records. “It is settled law that evidence of hostile witness also can be relied upon to the extent to which it supports the prosecution version. State of Gujarat, it was held by Supreme Court that it cannot be said that High Court erred in relying upon some portion of the evidence of a witness who was cross-examined by the prosecution (Hostile witness). However, Court has to be extremely cautious and circumspect in such acceptance. The party may take an advantageous portion therein. State of Maharashtra, it was held by Supreme Court that the evidence of hostile witness need not be rejected ipso facto on that account. It is settled law that the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded and it can be used to corroborate other reliable evidence if such reliable evidence exists on the record.īalu Sonba Shinde v. The correct rule is that either side may rely upon his evidence and that the whole of the evidence so far as it affects both parties favourably or unfavourably must be considered for what it is worth. It is not correct to say that when a witness is cross-examined by the party calling him, his evidence cannot be believed in part and disbelieved in part but must be excluded from the consideration altogether. The whole of the evidence so far as it affects both the parties favourably must go to the jury for what it is worth. It is not also to be rejected so far as it is in favour of the opposite party. The evidence of such a witness is not to be rejected either in whole or in part. The fact that a witness is dealt with under Section 154, Evidence Act, even when under that section he is cross-examined to discredit, in no way warrants a direction to the jury that they are bound in law to place no reliance on his evidence or that the party who called and cross-examined him can take no advantage from any part of his evidence. Section 154 lays down that “the court may, in its direction, permit the party who has called a witness to put him such questions as could have been asked in cross-examination by the adverse party.”Ī witness an ‘adverse’ or ‘unfavourable’ witness is one called by a party to prove a particular fact, who fails to prove such fact or proves an opposite fact. These types of witnesses are termed to be ‘hostile’. But sometimes in the course of a case (especially a criminal case), the witness is gained over by the opposite party is also termed as a hostile witness and due to this, the case of the prosecution might tumble down. AnswerĪccording to Bentham, witnesses are the “eyes and ears of justice”. įind the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. Question: Hostile witness | Whether the evidence of a witness who has been declared hostile can be relied on. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |