In a Court of Law, matters are decided based on evidence. This includes witness testimonies and circumstantial evidence which prove the version of parties, be it civil or criminal cases. Witnesses are humans, whose statements need to be corroborated. So, what happens when a person goes back from their statement as a witness? That’s called a hostile witness. But how do Courts take such witnesses while deciding matters? The hostile witness judgments of Supreme Court pave the way for such queries. Let us find out through various decisions of the Apex Court.
Who is a Hostile Witness?
The term “hostile” was nowhere to be found in the Indian Evidence Act, nor is it used in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. Hostile witness judgment by Supreme Court in KP Tamilmaran v. State (2025) discusses in detail the case of hostile witnesses in India. It explained that “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.”
When a prosecution witness deposes against the prosecution version, going back on his/her own previous statement, the prosecution can request the Court to declare such witness as hostile. The prosecution can also seek permission from the Court to cross-examine its own witness who turned hostile. The Court in this case compared the Indian concept of hostile witness with its English origin, where only one side gets the liberty to cross examine its own witness after being declared hostile. The Apex Court clarified that in India, the Court holds the discretion whether to allow a party to cross-examine its own witness, even if declared hostile. As explained by the Court, “It is for the Court to distinguish the wheat from the chaff while dealing with the depositions of a hostile witness.”
Hostile Witness Judgments Supreme Court
Here are some landmark case laws decided by Supreme Court where importance and technicalities related to hostile witness were discussed.
State of UP v. Ramesh Prasad Misra (1996)
This is one of the landmark judgments on hostile witness. The Apex Court in this case reiterated the settled law that evidence of hostile witness would not be rejected in totality if spoken in favour of the prosecution or even accused. However, the Court recommended such evidence to be subjected to close scrutiny. This way, part of evidence consistent with the case, whether of prosecution or defense, may be accepted.
Khujji v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1991)
The Apex Court followed the landmark judgments on hostile witness in Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana (1976), Rabinder Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa (1976) and Syed lqbal v. State of Karnataka (1980). The Supreme Court held 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 witnesses 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.”
C. Muniappan and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu (2010)
The Hostile Witness Judgment of Supreme Court once again upholds the importance of evidence of a hostile witness. The Court reiterated the settled law that “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 careful scrutiny thereof.”
Selvamani v. State represented by Inspector of Police (2024)
The Apex Court looked at various Landmark Judgments on Hostile Witness to express the settled position of laws. The Court expressed 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.”
Goverdhan v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025)
The Court in this case relied upon several landmark judgments on hostile witness to reiterate that “merely because the witnesses turn hostile does not necessarily mean that their evidence has to be thrown out entirely and what is supportive of the prosecution certainly be used.”
Landmark Judgments on Hostile Witness Reasons
KP Tamilmaran v. State (2025)
The Apex Court in this case targeted the Tarikh Pe Tarikh concept of Indian Justice System for witnesses turning hostile. The Court suggested that “One of the many reasons for witnesses turning hostile is the long delay usually caused in a trial.”
Mahender Chawla v. Union of India (2018)
In this case, the Supreme Court discussed in detail the major reasons due to which witnesses turn hostile. The Court regarded lack of State protection as one of the main reasons for hostile witness. It went on to explain that “It hardly needs to be emphasised that one of the main reasons for witnesses to turn hostile is that they are not accorded appropriate protection by the State. It is a harsh reality, particularly, in those cases where the accused persons/criminals are tried for heinous offences, or where the accused persons are influential persons or in a dominating position that they make attempts to terrorize or intimidate the witnesses because of which these witnesses either avoid coming to courts or refrain from deposing truthfully. This unfortunate situation prevails because of the reason that the State has not undertaken any protective measure to ensure the safety of these witnesses, commonly known as ‘witness protection’.”
Ramesh v. State of Haryana (2016)
This particular hostile witness judgment by Supreme Court analysed and laid down the major reasons discerned which make witnesses retracting their statements before Court and turning hostile were:
- Threat/intimidation
- Inducement by various means
- Use of muscle and money power by the accused
- Use of Stock Witnesses
- Protracted Trials
- Hassles faced by the witnesses during investigation and trial
- Non-existence of any clear-cut legislation to check hostility of witness.
