3.

In the present situation, the given evidence would be sufficient enough to bring home the guilt
of accused. The Supreme courts in its various judgments has held that declaration of a witness to
be hostile does not ipso facto reject the evidence and it is now well settled that the portion of
evidence being advantageous to both the parties may be taken advantage of- but the court before
whom such a reliance is placed shall have to be extremely cautious in such acceptance. The
decision made by the apex court in State of U.P. v Ramesh Prasad Misra and anr. That " it is
equally setteled 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 closed scrutiny and that
portion of the evidence which is consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence may be
accepted. If the judge finds that in the process the credit of the witness has not been completely
shaken , he may after reading and considering the evidence of the witness as a whole with due
caution and care , accept in the light of other evidence on the record, that part of his testimony
which he finds to be creditworthy and act upon it. As was decided in the case K. Anbazaghan v
superintendent of Police.

Witnesses turning hostile has been a major problem being faced by the Criminal Justice System
in India. The problem has gained prominence because of acquittals in high-profile cases like the
Best Bakery case, the Jessica Lal case and others. It is in this context that it becomes important to
understand what the problem is all about and whether the proposed amendment to the Criminal
Procedure Code (CrPC) would be the right solution to the problem.

Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 talks about question by party to his own witness.
The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any question to him
which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.—1[(1)] The Court may, in its
discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put
in cross-examination by the adverse party." 2[(2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the
person so permitted under sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.

Section 156 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 talks about questions tending to corroborate
evidence of relevant fact, admissible. Provided further, when a witness whom it is intended to
corroborate gives evidence of any relevant fact, he may be questioned as to any other
circumstances which he observed at or near to the time or place at which such relevant fact
occurred, if the Court is of opinion that such circumstances, if proved, would corroborate the
testimony of the witness as to the relevant fact which he testifies. Illustration A, an accomplice,
gives an account of a robbery in which he took part. He describes various incidents unconnected
with the robbery which occurred on his way to and from the place where it was committed.
Independent evidence of these facts may be given in order to corroborate his evidence as to the
robbery itself. In our criminal justice system witnesses are harassed. The way he is dealt with is a
subject of criticism. And when he does not appear in the court then he is subjected to cross
examination and lands himself in a helpless situation. For all these reasons a person abhors from
becoming a witness. A lot of witnesses do turn hostile because of threat by the powerful. It was
observed by the Delhi High Court. Sometimes witnesses are treated with offending words even
by the courts which has been taken in a serious way by the apex court in Tessta Setalvad v State
of Gujarat as it directed the lower courts not to use loud and offensive language against the
witnesses. The fact is that the accused are able to intimidate the witnesses because there is no
provision available under which after the assessment of a particular witness the administration
Could give the witness requisite security cover.