Hostility is the state of bad feeling and ill will. A hostile witness is an unfavourable witness. For a lay man, going to court may be a stressful experience, especially if one has never been. A film titled ‘Hostile Witness’, which was directed by Jack Roffey in 1968, is British Court Room- based drama. “Witness Protection Programmes” would be a step in the right direction for a fair trial. The Witness Protection Programmes are imperative as well as imminent in the context of alarming rate of somersaults by witnesses with ulterior motives and purely for personal gain or fear for security.
WHAT ARE THE MAIN REASONS FOR TURNING HOSTILE?
1. New to Court Atmosphere:- Most of witnesses, who are lay men, are scared of embarrassing themselves by not knowing court room procedures. They know not who’s who; who does what; who asks what; what things are called; and what’s what in the Court hall.
2. No Protection:- There are no ‘witness protection schemes’.
3. Threat and Intimidation:- Some witnesses are being intimidated and threatened by criminals; and some are trapped for money, owing to their poverty.
4. Delayed Trial:-Delay in disposing of criminal cases.
5. Stock Witnesses:- A stock witness is a witness is often appeared in police cases to speak as if he was present at the time of confession of accused. For inexplicable reasons scored out, a stock witness easily denies the case of prosecution. As was pointed out in Prem Chand vs Union Of India And Ors: 1981 AIR 613, 1981 SCR (1)1262, a stock witness admits as follows ‘”dubbed as a stock-witness and often disbelieved by the courts. Despite severe strictures passed by the courts, the Police did not give him up.”
6. In-adequate payment to witness:- Although section 312 of Cr.P.C permits the Court to order payment to witness, in most of the cases, witness could not even get to and fro charges.
7. Illiteracy:- Some witnesses are innocents, illiterates, and timid.
8. Lack of Responsibility:- Lack of responsibility for the welfare of Society; and lack of legal awareness.
The proof of charge which has to be beyond reasonable doubt must depend upon judicial evaluation of the totality of the evidence, oral and circumstantial and not by an isolated scrutiny (Zahira Habibulla H Sheikh And Anr vs State Of Gujarat And Ors, (2004)). Merely because a witness is declared hostile it does not make him unreliable so as to exclude his evidence from consideration altogether. As was held in Rabindra Kumar Dey vs State Of Orissa, Equivalent citations: 1977 AIR 170, 1977 SCR (1) 439, Section 154 of the Evidence Act confers. a discretion on the court to permit a witness to be cross-examined by a party calling him. The section confers a judicial discretion and must be exercised judiciously and properly in the interest of justice. The court will not nor.m. ally allow a party to cross-examine his own witness and declare the same hostile unless the court is satisfied that the statement of the witness exhibits an element of hostility. or that he has resiled from a material statement which he made before an earlier authority. In the Best Bakery Case ((2004) 4 SCC 158), the first trial was found to be a farce and was described as a ‘mock trial’.
“Witnesses” as Benthem said: are the eyes and ears of justice.
‘When the investigating agency helps the accused, the witnesses are threatened to depose falsely and prosecutor acts in a manner as if he was defending the accused, and the Court was acting merely as an onlooker and there is no fair trial at all, justice becomes the victim.’ (See: Zahira Habibulla H Sheikh And Anr vs State Of Gujarat And Ors, (2004))
It was held in Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh: 1991 AIR 1853, 1991 SCR (3) 1 that it seems to be well settled by the decisions of this Court Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana,  2 SCR 921; Rabinder Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa,  4 SCC 233 and Syed lqbal v. State of Karnataka,  1 SCR 95 that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and crossexamined him. The evidence of such witness- es cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof.
WHAT IS A CRIMINAL TRIAL?
In 2004, the Hon’ble Apex Court held in Zahira Habibulla H Sheikh And Anr vs State Of Gujarat And Ors, (2004) that a criminal trial is a judicial examination of the issues in the case and its purpose is to arrive at a judgment on an issue as a fact or relevant facts which may lead to the discovery of the fact issue and obtain proof of such facts at which the prosecution and the accused have arrived by their pleadings; the controlling question being the guilt or innocence of the accused. Since the object is to mete out justice and to convict the guilty and protect the innocent, the trial should be a search for the truth and not a bout over technicalities, and must be conducted under such rules as will protect the innocent, and punish the guilty. The proof of charge which has to be beyond reasonable doubt must depend upon judicial evaluation of the totality of the evidence, oral and circumstantial and not by an isolated scrutiny.
DUTY OF THE COURT:-
The Courts have to take a participatory role in a trial. They are not expected to be tape recorders to record whatever is being stated by the witnesses. Section 311 of the Code and Section 165 of the Evidence Act confer vast and wide powers on Presiding Officers of Court to elicit all necessary materials by playing an active role in the evidence collecting process. They have to monitor the proceedings in aid of justice in a manner that something, which is not relevant, is not unnecessarily brought into record. Even if the prosecutor is remiss in some ways, it can control the proceedings effectively so that ultimate objective i.e. truth is arrived at. This becomes more necessary where the Court has reasons to believe that the prosecuting agency or the prosecutor is not acting in the requisite manner. The Court cannot afford to be wishfully or pretend to be blissfully ignorant or oblivious to such serious pitfalls or dereliction of duty on the part of the prosecuting agency. The prosecutor who does not act fairly and acts more like a counsel for the defence is a liability to the fair judicial system, and Courts could not also play into the hands of such prosecuting agency showing indifference or adopting an attitude of total aloofness. (Zahira Habibulla H Sheikh And Anr vs State Of Gujarat And Ors, (2004)).
THE POWER OF THE COURT:-
The power of the Court under Section 165 of the Evidence Act is in a way complementary to its power under Section 311 of the Code. The section consists of two parts i.e (i) giving a discretion to the Court to examine the witness at any stage and (ii) the mandatory portion which compels the Court to examine a witness if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the Court. Though the discretion given to the Court is very wide, the very width requires a corresponding caution. In Mohan Lal v. Union of India (1991 Supp (1) SCC 271) this Court has observed, while considering the scope and ambit of Section 311, that the very usage of the word such as, ‘any Court’ ‘at any stage’, or ‘any enquiry or trial or other proceedings’ ‘any person’ and ‘any such person’ clearly spells out that the Section has expressed in the widest possible terms and do not limit the discretion of the Court in any way. However, as noted above, the very width requires a corresponding caution that the discretionary powers should be invoked as the exigencies of justice require and exercised judicially with circumspection and consistently with the provisions of the Code. The second part of the section does not allow any discretion but obligates and binds the Court to take necessary steps if the fresh evidence to be obtained is essential to the just decision of the case – ‘essential’, to an active and alert mind and not to one which is bent to abandon or abdicate. Object of the Section is to enable the Court to arrive at the truth irrespective of the fact that the prosecution or the defence has failed to produce some evidence which is necessary for a just and proper disposal of the case. The power is exercised and the evidence is examined neither to help the prosecution nor the defence, if the Court feels that there is necessity to act in terms of Section 311 but only to subserve the cause of justice and public interest. It is done with an object of getting the evidence in aid of a just decision and to uphold the truth. (See Zahira Habibulla H Sheikh And Anr vs State Of Gujarat And Ors, (2004)).
THE WORD ‘HOSTILE’ IS ABSENT IN INDIAN LAW:-
The terms “hostile”, “adverse” or “unfavourable” witnesses are alien to the Indian Evidence Act. The terms “hostile witness”, “adverse witness”, “unfavourable witness”, “unwilling witness” are all terms of English Law. The rule of not permitting a party calling the witness to cross examine are relaxed under the common law by evolving the terms “hostile witness and unfavourable witness”. Under the common law a hostile witness is described as one who is not desirous of telling the truth at the instance of the party calling him and a unfavourable witness is one called by a party to prove a particular fact in issue or relevant to the issue who fails to prove such fact, or proves the opposite test. (See Gura Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan (2000)).
HOW TO UNDERSTAND SECTION 142 AND SECTION 154 OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT?
In India the right to cross-examine the witnesses by the party calling him is governed by the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 142 requires that leading questions cannot be put to the witness in examination-in-chief or in re- examination except with the permission of the court. The court can, however, permit leading question as to the matters which are introductory or undisputed or which have, in its opinion, already been sufficiently proved. Section 154 authorises the court in its discretion to permit the person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. The courts are, therefore, under a legal obligation to exercise the discretion vesting in them in a judicious manner by proper application of mind and keeping in view the attending circumstances. (See Gura Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan (2000)).
WHAT DOES SECTION 154 OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 SAY?
Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads thus:
154. Question by party to his own witness: The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him, which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.
As was held in Middolla Harijana Thimmaiah vs State Of A.P. Rep. By S.H.O., Pargi: 2005 (1) ALD Cri 286, 2005 (1) ALT 537, section 154 does not in terms or by necessary implication confine the exercise of the power by the Court before the examination-in-chief is concluded or to any particular stage of the examination of the witness. It is wide in scope and the discretion is entirely to the Court to exercise the power when the circumstances demand. To confine this power to the stage of examination-in-chief is to make it ineffective in practice. A clever witness in his examination-in-chief faithfully conforms to what he stated earlier to the police or in committing Court, but in the cross-examination introduces statements in a subtle way contradicting in effect what he stated in the examination-in-chief. If his design is obvious, we do not see why the Court cannot, during the course of his cross-examination, permit the person calling him as a witness to put questions to him or might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.
THREE STAGES IN THE EXAMINATION OF A WITNESS:-
In Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker vs State Of Gujarat, 1964 AIR 1563, 1964 SCR (7) 361, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that Section 137 of the Evidence Act, gives only the three stages in the examination of a witness, and it has no relevance to the question when a party calling a witness can be permitted to put to him questions under s. 154 of the Evidence Act: that is governed by the provisions of s. 154 of the said Act, which confers a discretionary power on the court to permit a person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.
PERMISSION TO CROSS –EXAMINATION ?
Merely because a witness in an unguarded moment speaks the truth which may not suit the prosecution or which may be favourable to the accused, the discretion to allow the party concerned to cross-examine his own witnesses cannot be allowed. The contingency _of permitting the cross-examination of the witness by the party calling him is an extra-ordinary phenomenon and permission should be given only in special cases. (Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker v. State of Gujarat, 7 S.C.R. 361, 368.)
The Ho’nble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in the recent judgment of 2014, in the case of Sri Gundappa vs The State, Rep. By Spl.S.C For ACB, it was observed that It is a settled legal proposition that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross examine him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent that their version is found to be dependable on a carefulscrutiny thereof (Vide: Bhagwan Singh v. The State of Haryana : AIR 1976 SC 202; Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa: AIR 1977 SC 170; Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka:AIR 1979 SC 1848; and Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh: AIR 1991 SC1853).
In State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra and Anr. (AIR 1996 SC 2766), this Court held that evidence of a hostile witness would not be totally rejected if spoken in favour of the prosecution or the accused but required to be subjected to close scrutiny and that portion of the evidence which is consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence can be relied upon. A similar view has been reiterated in Sarvesh Narain Shukla v. Daroga Singh and others. (AIR 2008 SC 320); Subbu Singh v. State by Public Prosecutor ((2009) 6 SCC 462); C. Muniappan and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 2010 SC 3718); and Himanshu @ Chintu v. State (NCT of Delhi):(2011) 2 SCC 36).
THE EVIDENCE OF A HOSTILE WITNESS CANNOT BE DISCARDED AS A WHOLE:-
In 2012, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Harijan vs State Of U.P, it was observed that the law can be summarised to the effect that the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded as a whole, and relevant parts thereof which are admissible in law, can be used by the prosecution or the defence. (See also: C. Muniappan & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2010 SC 3718; and Himanshu @ Chintu v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 2 SCC 36)
THE DECLARATION OF A WITNESS TO BE HOSTILE DOES NOT IPSO FACTO REJECT THE EVIDENCE:-
In Balu Sonba Shinde v. State of Maharashtra 2003 SCC (Crl.) 112 the Supreme Court held that the declaration of a witness to be hostile does not ipso facto reject the evidence. The portion of evidence being advantageous to the parties may be taken advantage of, but the Court should be extremely cautious and circumspect in such acceptance. The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh followed this ruling in the case of Middolla Harijana Thimmaiah vs State Of A.P. Rep. By S.H.O., Pargi: 2005 (1) ALD Cri 286, 2005 (1) ALT 537.
THE SCOPE OF SECTION 145 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT:-
In Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration the Supreme Court while considering the scope of Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, held that when a witness is examined and contradicted with the leave of the Court by the party calling him, his evidence cannot, as a matter of law, be discarded as a whole. It is for the Judge of fact to consider in each case whether as a result of such cross-examination and contradiction, the witness stands thoroughly discredited or can still be believed in regard to a part of his testimony. If the Judge finds that in the process, the credit of the witness has not been completely shaken, he may, after reading and considering evidence of the witness, as a whole, with due caution and care, accept, in the light of the other evidence on the record, that part of his testimony which he finds to be creditworthy and act upon it. If in a given case, the whole of the testimony of the witness is impugned, and in the process, the witness stands squarely and totally discredited, the Judge should, as a matter of prudence, discard his evidence in toto.
THE DECLARATION OF A WITNESS AS HOSTILE ONE, HAS NOT THE EFFECT OF WASHING AWAY:-
In Bhagatram v. State of M.P. 1990 Crl.L.J. 2407 (M.P.) a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court held as follows: The declaration of a witness as hostile one, has not the effect of washing away his entire evidence and acceptable portions can be acted upon.
THE EVIDENCE OF A HOSTILE WITNESS IS NOT TO BE REJECTED EITHER IN WHOLE OR IN PART:-
In Profulla Kumar Sarkar v. Emperor AIR 1931 Cal. 401 (F.B.) a Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court held as follows: The evidence of a hostile witness is not to be rejected either in whole or in part. It is not also to be rejected so far as it is in favour of the party catling the witness, nor is it to be rejected so far as it is in favour of the opposite party. The whole of the evidence so far as it affects both parties favourably or unfavourably must go to the jury for what it is worth.
THE EVIDENCE OF A PROSECUTION WITNESS CANNOT BE REJECTED IN TOTO:-
In Khujji v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1991 SCC (Cr.) 916, the Supreme Court held as follows: The evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross-examined him. The evidence of such a witness cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent his version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof. In another case of Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheb & Others vs State Of U.P (2006), It is well settled that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross-examined him. The evidence of such witness cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent his version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof. ( See BhagwanSingh v. State ofHaryana AIR 1976 SC 202,RabinderKumarDey v. State ofOrissa AIR1977 SC 170,SyedAkbar v. State ofKarnataka AIR 1979 SC 1848 and Khujji @ Surendra Tiwariv. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1991 SC 1853. The Hon’ble High of Patna also followed same principle of law in the case of Bikram Jha vs The State Of Bihar (2014)).
WITNESS DOES NOT BECOME UNRELIABLE ONLY BY HIS DECLARATION AS HOSTILE:-
In Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa [AIR 1977 SC 170] it was observed that by giving permission to cross-examine nothing adverse to the credit of the witness is decided and the witness does not become unreliable only by his declaration as hostile. Merely on this ground his whole testimony cannot be excluded from consideration. In a criminal trial where a 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 as washed off the record altogether. It is for the court of fact to consider in each case whether as a result of such cross-examination and contradiction the witness stands discredited or can still be believed in regard to any part of his testimony. (See Gura Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan (2000))
AVOID THE USE OF SUCH EXPRESSIONS, SUCH AS ‘DECLARED HOSTILE’, ‘DECLARED UNFAVOURABLE’
In Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration [AIR 1976 SC 294] held: “To steer clear of the controversy over the meaning of the terms ‘hostile’ witness, ‘adverse’ witness, ‘unfavourable’ witness which had given rise to considerable difficulty and conflict of opinion in England, the authors of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 seem to have advisedly avoided the use of any of those terms so that, in India, the grant of permission to cross-examine his own witness by a party is not conditional on the witness being declared ‘adverse’ or ‘hostile’. Whether it be the grant of permission under Sec.142 to put leading questions, or the leave under Section 154 to ask questions which might be put in cross- examination by the adverse party, the Indian Evidence Act leaves the matter entirely to the discretion of the court (see the observfations of Sir Lawrence Jenkins in Baikuntha Nath v. Prasannamoyi), AIR 1922 PC 409. The discretion conferred by Section 154 on the court is unqualified and untrammelled, and is apart from any question of ‘hostility’. It is to be liberally exercised whenever the court from the witnesses’s demeanour, temper, attitude, bearing, or the tenor and tendency of his answers, or from a perusal of his previous inconsistent statement, or otherwise, thinks that the grant of such permission is expedient to extract the truth and to do justice. The grant of such permission does not amount to an adjudication by the court as to the veracity of the witness. Therefore, in the order granting such permission, it is preferable to avoid the use of such expressions, such as ‘declared hostile’, ‘declared unfavourable’, the significance of which is still not free from the historical cobwebs which, in their wake bring a misleading legacy of confusion, and conflict that had so long vexed the English Courts. (See Gura Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan (2000)).
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ENGLISH STATUTE AND THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT:-
As was pointed out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Gura Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan (2000), it is important to note that the English statute differs materially from the law contained in the Indian Evidence Act in regard to cross-examination and contradiction of his own witness by a party. Under the English Law, a party is not permitted to impeach the credit of his own witness by general evidence of his bad character, shady antecedents or previous conviction. In India, this can be done with the consent of the court under S.155. Under the English Act of 1865, a party calling the witness, can ‘cross-examine’ and contradict a witness in respect of his previous inconsistent statements with the leave of the court, only when the court considers the witness to be ‘adverse’. As already noticed, no such condition has been laid down in Ss.154 and 155 of the Indian Act and the grant of such leave has been left completely to the discretion of the court, the exercise of which is not fettered by or dependent upon the ‘hostility’ or ‘adverseness’ of the witness. In this respect, the Indian Evidence Act is in advance of the English Law.
THE EVIDENCE OF A HOSTILE WITNESS WOULD NOT BE TOTALLY REJECTED:-
In State of U.P.v. Ramesh Prasad Misra , it was held thus: It is rather unfortunate most unfortunate that these witnesses, one of whom was an advocate, having given the statements about the facts within their special knowledge, under Section 161 recorded during investigation, have resiled from correctness of the versions in the statements. They have not given any reason as to why the Investigating Officer could record statements contrary to what they had disclosed. It is equally settled law that the evidence of a hostile witness would not be totally rejected if spoken in favour of the prosecution or the accused, but it can be subjected to close scrutiny and that portion of the evidence which is consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence may be accepted. (see State Of Gujarat vs Anirudh Singhh And Another. Citations: AIR 1997 SC 2780, 1997 (2) ALD Cri 266, 1997 CriLJ 3397, 1997 (2) Crimes 82 SC, (1997) 3 GLR 2245, JT 1997 (6) SC 236, 1997 (4) SCALE 724, (1997) 6 SCC 514, 1997 Supp 2 SCR 234).
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS:-
While dealing with Section 311 this Court in Rajendra Prasad v. Narcotic Cell thr. Its officer in Charge, Delhi (1999 (6) SCC 110) held as follows: “It is a common experience in criminal courts that defence counsel would raise objections whenever courts exercise powers under Section 311 of the Code or under Section 165 of the Evidence Act, 1872 by saying that the court could not “fill the lacuna in the prosecution case”. Observing this, the Hon’ble Apex Court in See Zahira Habibulla H Sheikh And Anr (supra), it is pointed out that A lacuna in the prosecution is not to be equated with the fallout of an oversight committed by a Public Prosecutor during trial, either in producing relevant materials or in eliciting relevant answers from witnesses. The adage “to err is human” is the recognition of the possibility of making mistakes to which humans are prone. A corollary of any such laches or mistakes during the conducting of a case cannot be understood as a lacuna which a court cannot fill up.
1. In Jennison v. Backer (1972 (1) All E.R. 1006), “The law should not be seen to sit limply, while those who defy it go free and, those who seek its protection lose hope”.
2. As was held by the Ho’ble Apex Court in Zahira Habibulla H Sheikh And Anr (supra), the Court is not merely to act as a tape recorder recording evidence, overlooking the object of trial i.e. to get at the truth. It cannot be oblivious to the active role to be played for which there is not only ample scope, but sufficient powers conferred under the Code. It has a greater duty and responsibility i.e. to render justice, in a case where the role of the prosecuting agency itself is put in issue and is said to be hand in glove with the accused, parading a mock fight and making a mockery of the criminal justice administration itself.
3. It is as much the duty of the prosecutor as of the Court to ensure that full and material facts are brought on record so that there might not be miscarriage of justice. (See Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan (Smt.) v. Vasant Raghunath Dhoble and Anr. (2003 (7) SCC 749).
4. In Vineet Narian v. Union of India (1998 (1) SCC 226) has directed that steps should be taken immediately for the constitution of able and impartial agency comprising persons of unimpeachable integrity to perform functions akin to those of the Director of Prosecution in England.
5. In India, “Witness Protection Programmes” must be established. Protection for witness during and after trial of a case must be provided.
6. Several countries for example Australia, Canada and USA have even enacted legislation in this regard. Therefore, such steps must be taken in India.
7. In catena of decisions, out Judiciary held that disposal of case does not mean disposal for statistical purposes but effective and real disposal to achieve the object of any trial.
8. The process of investigation must be fair. As was observed in Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar and Ors. (1998 (4) SCC 517) if primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigation, to the omission or lapses by perfunctory investigation or omissions, the faith and confidence of the people would be shaken not only in the Law enforcing agency but also in the administration of justice in the hands of Courts.
9. Witness awareness camps must be conducted in order to know that cogent evidence is the primary need either to acquit or to convict an accused as to the facts and circumstances of each case.
10. Training classes for the both advocates and judicial officers must be conducted from time to time as to importance of a witness in case for the better society. If we allow hostility in all cases on the ground that ‘parties compromised’, it will be affect the welfare of the Society. However, if any ‘compromise’, it must strictly be done in accordance with law but hostility should not be encouraged ignoring the welfare of the Society.
11. Examination of witnesses must be video-graphed through video conference. In-camera proceedings must be conducted. Information technology in judiciary must widely be used in recording evidence of witnesses. In some serious cases, examination of witness must be done through video conference and it should be done secretly without prejudicing the rights of accused.
12. Witness must be respected and honored liken a ‘guest of the Court’ because a witnesses are the eyes and ears of justice.
13. Some Important Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India delivered in 2014 as to the subject matter of ‘ Hostile Witness’:-
1) Periyasami vs State Tr.Insp.Of Police
2) Vinod Kumar vs State Of Punjab
3) Radhey Shyam vs State Of Rajasthan
4) Paulmeli & Anr vs State Of Tamil Nadu
5) Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao vs State Of A.P.& Ors
6) State Of Rajasthan vs Thakur Singh
7) Balbir vs Vazir And Other
8) Jodhan vs State Of M.P
9) Baskaran & Anr vs State Of Tamil Nadu
10) Noushad @ Noushad Pasha & Ors vs State Of Karnataka
11) Dinesh vs State Of Haryana
12) Duryodhan Rout vs State Of Orissa
13) Shyamal Saha & Anr vs State Of West Bengal
14) Joshinder Yadav vs State Of Bihar
15) Khim Singh vs State Of Uttrakhand
16) Paramsivam & Ors vs State Tr.Insp.Of Police
17) Manoharlal vs State Of M.P
18) Ananda Poojary vs State Of Karnataka
19) Somabhai Gopalbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat
20) Lalit Kumar Yadav @ Kuri vs State Of U.P
21) Nand Kumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh
22) Patel Maheshbhai Ranchobhai & Ors vs State Of Gujarat
23) Hari Om vs State Of Haryana And Anr
24) Santosh Kumar Singh vs State Of M.P
25) Selvaraj @ Chinnapaiyan vs State Tr.Insp.Of Police
26) Ravutappa vs State Of Karnataka
27) Sobaran Singh & Ors vs State Of M.P
28) M.R.Purshotham vs State Of Karnataka
29) Sangili @ Sanganathan vs State Of Tamil Nadu
30) Kanhaiya Lal vs State Of Rajasthan