EVIDENCE LAW

HOSTILE WITNESS AND ITS EVIDENTIARY VALUE

A witness is an individual who has firsthand knowledge about an event, situation, or legal
matter and provides testimony or evidence about it. Witnesses play a crucial role in legal
proceedings, investigations, and trials by offering their accounts of events or facts. Their
testimony can be oral or written, and they are often called upon to provide information that is
relevant to a case. Types of Witnesses are Eye witness, Expert witness, Character witness,
Material witness etc.
A hostile witness, a term commonly used in legal proceedings, refers to a witness who
exhibits unfriendly or uncooperative behavior towards the party that called them to testify,
often by giving contradictory or uncooperative testimony. This phenomenon often arises
during cross-examination when the witness's statements contradict their earlier statements or
the case presented by the party calling them. A critical analysis of hostile witnesses and their
evidentiary value involves exploring the legal framework, the challenges posed, and the
impact on the reliability of evidence presented in court. In many jurisdictions, the party that
called the witness has the right to declare the witness as hostile and cross-examine them.

1. Legal Framework:
The legal system recognizes the possibility of witnesses turning hostile during trials. Rules of
evidence typically allow for the cross-examination of witnesses to test their credibility and
the truthfulness of their statements.
2. Reasons for Hostility:
Various factors contribute to witness hostility, including fear, pressure, bias, or a change in
circumstances. Understanding these reasons is crucial for evaluating the motivations behind a
witness's behavior.
3. Cross-Examination Techniques:
Lawyers employ specific techniques during cross-examination to deal with hostile witnesses.
These include impeaching the witness's credibility, confronting them with prior inconsistent
statements, and exposing any potential biases.
4. Evidentiary Value of Hostile Witness Statements:
The evidentiary value of statements made by hostile witnesses is a complex aspect of legal
analysis. Courts must carefully assess the reliability of such statements, considering factors
like consistency, demeanor, and the overall context of the trial. The evidentiary value of a
hostile witness's testimony can vary. While their statements may be admissible, the court
often considers the circumstances and the witness's demeanour during cross-examination.
The goal is to assess the credibility and reliability of the testimony. Hostility alone may not
necessarily discredit the witness; instead, it might be a factor the trier of fact considers when
weighing the evidence.
5. Impeachment of Credibility:
Cross-examination allows attorneys to impeach the credibility of hostile witnesses. This
involves questioning their character, pointing out inconsistencies in their statements, or
revealing any motives to lie.
6. Corroboration and Supporting Evidence:
Courts often look for corroborating evidence to support or challenge the statements of hostile
witnesses. Corroboration enhances the overall reliability of the evidence presented, especially
when witness credibility is in question. Supporting evidence refers to any additional
information, facts, or materials that lend credibility to a specific claim, argument, or piece of
evidence. It is intended to strengthen the overall case by providing context, depth, or
reinforcement to the primary evidence presented. Corroboration involves the presentation of
additional evidence that supports or confirms the accuracy or truthfulness of a particular
statement or testimony. It provides independent verification of key facts or details.
Corroborative evidence may come from a different source, witness, or type of evidence,
adding weight to the primary evidence presented. For example, if a witness testifies to having
witnessed an event, and there is physical evidence or another witness who confirms aspects
of the first witness's account, it can be considered corroboration. Supporting evidence can
take various forms, including documents, expert testimony, physical evidence, eyewitness
accounts, or other relevant information that contributes to a more comprehensive
understanding of the matter at hand.
7. Expert Opinions on Hostile Witnesses:
Legal scholars and experts may offer diverse opinions on the evidentiary value of hostile
witness statements. A critical analysis should incorporate these perspectives to provide a
well-rounded view of the complexities involved.
8. Adverse Inferences:
In some legal systems, the fact that a witness is declared hostile may allow the examining
party to ask leading questions. This means that the party can ask questions in a manner that
suggests the answer, potentially revealing information that may be more favorable to their
case.
9. Weight of the Testimony:
The judge or jury will ultimately determine the weight and significance to be given to the
testimony of a hostile witness. They may consider factors such as the demeanor of the
witness, the consistency of their statements, and any corroborating evidence.
10. Psychological Factors:
Understanding the psychological factors influencing witness behavior is crucial. Fear,
intimidation, or external pressures may contribute to hostility, affecting the witness's ability to
provide accurate and reliable testimony.
11. Legal Precedents:
Examining past legal precedents involving hostile witnesses can offer insights into how
courts have treated such situations. Precedents help establish guidelines for evaluating the
evidentiary value of witness statements.
12. Impact on Judicial Decisions:
An analysis should explore how the presence of a hostile witness influences judicial
decisions. Courts must weigh the credibility of the testimony and decide whether the
witness's statements can be accepted as truthful or require additional scrutiny.
13. Reforms and Best Practices:
Evaluating the effectiveness of existing legal procedures in handling hostile witnesses is
crucial. This includes assessing whether reforms or best practices are needed to enhance the
reliability of witness testimony in court.
14. International Perspectives:
A comprehensive analysis could explore how other legal systems handle hostile witnesses.
Comparative studies can provide valuable insights into alternative approaches and potential
improvements to the existing framework.

CASE LAWS
State of U.P. v. Nahar Singh (1998): The Supreme Court of India, in this case, emphasized
that the testimony of a hostile witness is not to be discarded as untrustworthy merely because
they turn hostile. The court should carefully evaluate the entire evidence, and if some part of
the testimony is found credible, it can be relied upon.
Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab (1957): This case highlighted that the fact that
a witness has turned hostile does not render his entire evidence untrustworthy. The court can
still rely on those parts of the testimony that are consistent with other evidence.
Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana (1976): The Supreme Court held that the testimony of a
hostile witness can be used to corroborate other evidence on record if it is trustworthy and
credible.
C. Muniappan v. State of T.N., (2010) 9 SCC 567 it is stated that “ It is 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-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”.
Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs. State of Gujarat (1983): This case underscores the
importance of cross-examination in dealing with hostile witnesses. It holds that the credit of a
witness can be attacked through cross-examination, and the prosecution is entitled to impeach
its own witness if necessary.
State of Rajasthan vs. Kashi Ram (2006): In this case, the Supreme Court held that the
testimony of a hostile witness can be relied upon if it is corroborated by other evidence, and
the corroboration makes the testimony trustworthy.

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the evidentiary value of a hostile witness's testimony depends on various
factors, and each case must be evaluated on its merits. Courts need to carefully assess the
credibility of the witness and the consistency of their statements with other evidence.
Hostility alone may not necessarily diminish the probative value of the testimony. The hostile
witnesses and their evidentiary value require a nuanced examination of legal principles,
psychological factors, and practical considerations in the courtroom. While the testimony of a
hostile witness may pose challenges, it remains an integral part of the evidence presented in a
legal proceeding. The court, legal professionals, and fact-finders will carefully assess the
evidentiary value of the witness's testimony in the context of the entire case. The ability to
effectively handle a hostile witness through cross-examination and impeachment strategies
contributes to the overall strength of the case presented by the examining party. By
addressing the challenges posed by hostile witnesses and assessing the impact on the
reliability of evidence, legal scholars and practitioners can contribute to a more informed and
effective judicial process.