ASSIGNMENT OF LAW OF EVIDENCE

MEWAR UNIVERSITY

SESSION- (2023-2024)

TOPIC- HOSTILE WITNESS AND EVIDENTERY VALUE OF

THEIR TESTIMONY

SUBMITTED BY: SUBMITTED TO:

DEEPAK KUMAR SINGH
LLB (FACULTY IN-CHARGE)
ENROLMENT NO:
MUR2105119

INTRODUCTION
Witnesses play very significant role in Criminal Justice System. According to Bentham,
“Witnesses are eyes and ears of Justice”, as every statement made by them before the Court
of law, helps the Court to deliver justice. In criminal justice system, justice cannot be done
without active and honest participation of witnesses in criminal proceedings. Yet Indian
Legislature has not given proper definition to the word ‘witness’ in any of the Indian Statute,
neither Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 nor does Indian Evidence Act define the term
‘Witness ’in any of its provisions. However, the dictionary meaning of the term “Witness” is
a person who is present at some event and able to give information about it. In other words,
“A witness is defined as one who sees, knows or vouches for something or one who gives
testimony, under oath or affirmation in person or by oral or written deposition, or by
affidavit”.

1|Page
HOSTILE WITNESS MEANING AND NATURE
In general, we can say that a witness is labelled as hostile, when he furnishes a certain
statement on his knowledge about commission of a crime before the police but refutes it
when called as witness before the court during the trial. The term ‘hostile witness’ does not
find any explicit or implicit mention in any Indian laws, be it Indian Evidence Act or the
Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law. Historically, the term Hostile Witness seems to
have its origin in Common Law. The term ‘hostile witness’ was first coined in the common
law to provide adequate safeguard against the “contrivance of an artful witness” who wilfully
by hostile evidence “ruin the cause” of the party calling such a witness. Such actions hamper
not only the interest of the litigating parties but also the quest of the courts to meet the ends
of justice. The “safeguard” as envisaged under the common law, consisted of contradicting
witness with their previous statements or impeaching their credit (which normally as a rule
was not allowed) by the party calling such witnesses. To initiate the “safeguard”, it was
imperative to declare such a witness “hostile”. For this purpose, common law, laid down
certain peculiarities of a ‘hostile’ witness, such as, “not desirous of telling the truth at the
instance of the party calling him” or “the existence of a ‘hostile animus’ to the party calling
such a witness.” The Wikipedia Encyclopaedia defines ‘hostile witness’ as a witness in a
trial who testifies for the opposing party or a witness who offers adverse testimony to the
calling party during direct examination. A witness called by the opposing party is presumed
hostile. A witness called by the direct examiner can be declared hostile by a judge, at the
request of the examiner, when the witness' testimony is openly antagonistic or clearly
prejudiced to the opposing party. The Law.Com Dictionary defines hostile witness
technically an "adverse witness" in a trial who is found by the judge to be hostile (adverse) to
the position of the party whose attorney is questioning the witness, even though the attorney
called the witness to testify on behalf of his/her client. When the attorney calling the witness
finds that the answers are contrary to the legal position of his/her client or the witness
becomes openly antagonistic, the attorney may request the judge to declare the witness to be
"hostile" or "adverse." If the judge declares the witness to be hostile (i.e. adverse), the
attorney may ask "leading" questions which suggest answers or are challenging to the
testimony just as on cross examination of a witness who has testified for the opposition.
a hostile witness, is also called as adverse witness, who weakens the case of the side he or she
is supposed to be supporting i.e. instead of supporting the prosecution who has presented him
as a witness in the court of law, the witness either with his evidence or statement became
antagonistic to the attorney and thus "ruin the case" of the party calling such witness. In such
a case, moreover, it is the attorney who asks the judge to declare the witness a hostile witness.
Thus, it is the court and no other than the court that has authority to declare a witness a
hostile witness. It has to be remembered here that the court cannot by itself declare a witness
a hostile witness but it can do so only on the request made by the prosecution attorney. If a
witness has been declared a hostile witness, by the court of law, the attorney then has greater
freedom in questioning the hostile witness. In other words, if a witness has been declared as
hostile witness the prosecution may question the witness as if in cross-examination i.e. he or
she may ask leading questions to the witness declared hostile and this is the basic difference
between the status of a witness declared hostile and the witness who has not been declared
hostile or who is a common or favourable witness.

2|Page
CONCEPT OF HOSTILE WITNESS UNDER INDIAN LAW
Though there are not enough provisions under domestic law dealing directly with the issue
but there are certain provisions under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 which are helpful in explaining the concept to some extent.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 empowers the Police Officer making an
investigation, to require the compulsory attendance before himself, of any person who
appears to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case under investigation.
This provision is to be read in conjunction with Section 161 as per which the Police Officer
making the investigation can examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted with the
facts and circumstances of the case. Section 161(3) also permits the Police Officer to reduce
into writing any statement made to him in the course of an examination under this section.
However, once this is done, Section 162 of the Code comes into play. Section 162(1) consists
of two main parts. The first part clearly mandates that any statement made to the Police
Officer and reduced into writing by him, would not be signed by the maker of such statement.
The second part of this provision creates a bar on the admissibility of statements made by any
person to a police officer in the course of an investigation.
The Supreme Court in Tahsildar Singh V. State of U.P. examined in detail the purpose and
object of this provision. According to the Apex Court, the legislative intent behind this
provision was to protect the accused person from police officers who would be in a position
to influence the makers of such statements, and from third persons who would be inclined to
make false statements before the police. This is a highly laudable objective and is truly
reflective of the attempt to ensure fairness in the process of criminal investigation. At the
same time, it was imperative that there be some mechanism for recording confessions and
other statements in a fair and fool proof manner, especially in situations where the police
thought the witnesses were unlikely to stick to the statements made by them under Section
161.It was precisely this objective that resulted in vesting of authority in the Judicial
Magistrate to record statements by witnesses as well as confessions by accused persons,
under Section 164 of the Code. The Supreme Court also observed in State of U.P. V.
Singhara Singh that Section 164 would be rendered wholly nugatory if the procedure
prescribed by that provision was not held to be mandatory. Section 164 strikes a fine balance
between the interests of the investigating agency and the accused person, and this is the
primary reason for judicial insistence on strict compliance with the prescribed procedure. As
rightly observed by a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in State of Madras V. G.
Krishnan the object of recording a statement under Section 164 is to deter a witness from
changing his version later by succumbing to temptations, influences, or blandishments.

The Evidential Value of Statements Recorded Under Section 164

The significance in a criminal trial, of such statements recorded under Section 164, can be
understood only through a scrutiny of various provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Any statement made before a Magistrate and duly recorded under Section 164 is considered a
public document under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Written documents
containing such statements are also presumed to be genuine as well as duly recorded, under
Section 80 of this Act. The effect of this provision is to dispense with the examination of the
Magistrate who recorded the statement under Section 164. Moreover, Section 91 of the

3|Page
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, also excludes oral evidence in cases such as Section 164, where
the contents of the statement are required by law to be reduced into documentary form. As
per Section 91, only the written statement recorded under Section 164 can be used as
evidence of the verbal statement made by the witness before the Magistrate. These provisions
of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, read together, permit the admissibility of statements made
by witnesses to the Magistrate, as long as such statements are duly recorded under Section
164.

Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Certain other provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, govern the use of such statements
in a criminal trial, and thereby merit our attention. Section 141 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 defines leading questions, whereas Section 142 requires that leading questions must not
be put to witness in an examination-in chief, or in a re-examination, except with the
permission of the Court. The court can however permit leading questions as to the matters
which are introductory or undisputed or which in its opinion have already been sufficiently
proved. Section 154 authorizes the court in the discretion to permit the persons who call a
witness to put any quest to him which might be put in cross examination by other party.
Such questions will include: -
• Leading questions (Section 143 of Evidence Act)
• Questions relating to his previous statements (Section 145 of Evidence Act)
• Questions, which tend to test his veracity to discover who he is and what his position in life
or to shake his credit (Section 146 of Evidence Act)
It is to be taken into account that the courts are under a legal obligation to exercise the
discretion vested in them in a judicious manner by proper application of mind and keeping in
view the attending circumstances. Furthermore, the permission of cross-examination Under
Section 154 of the Evidence Act cannot and should not be granted at mere asking of a party
calling the witness. If we analyse the language of Section 154 following points come into
picture -
• Firstly, the provision (Section.154 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872) only talks about
permitting “such questions as may be asked in cross- examination.”
• Secondly, the law nowhere mentions, the need to declare a witness as hostile, before the
provision can be invoked.
• Thirdly, the judicial consideration (under Section154) is only to be invoked when the court
feels that ‘the attitude disclosed by the witness is destructive of his duty to speak the truth.
This shows that domestic law differs from common law to a significant degree in this respect.
Common law categorizes witnesses as “hostile” or “adverse” for the purpose of cross
examination whereas Indian Law makes no such distinction. All that law seeks to do is elicit
hidden fact from the witnesses for the sole purpose of determining the truth. Ultimately it is
the court, which has to use its discretion in granting the permission to ask such questions as
referred in Sec 154 of the Indian Evidence Act Section 145 of this Act prescribes one of the
most effective modes for impeaching the credit of a witness. This section allows for the
cross-examination of any witness as to any previous statement made by him in writing. The

4|Page
previous statement made by the witness can be used for the purpose of contradiction of the
witness, under this section, as long as his attention is taken to those parts of the writing that
are to be relied on for such purpose. Section 145 statutorily incorporates one significant use
of previous statements made by witnesses and assumes prominence especially in the context
of the general principle that such statements cannot be used as substantive evidence. The
other relevant provision is Section 157 of the Act, which states that any former statement
made by a witness relating to the same fact, before any authority legally competent to
investigate the fact, can be used to corroborate the oral testimony.

Witnesses and their examination for Testimony

"Consideration of evidence by way of deposition of witnesses calls for attainment and
availability of proof followed by affirmation or denial of the parties. The accuracy of proof is
considered in the light of demonstrative availability eliminating errors. Proof of facts is
applied to the effect of evidence and is not undertaken in terms of mathematical
applicability." For evidence introduced and to be made admissible in courts, requires a degree
which should exclude falsity and help expose the correct facts in a trial. Matters of fact
cannot be determined with mathematical precision in a trial. What is introduced may not be
sufficient to bring out the correct facts for justice to prevail, but nevertheless, the court needs
testimony of witnesses to help in clarifying the existing facts and the discover which
otherwise may not be present when evidence is submitted. The question is not to determine
what facts are false but to determine what the truth in matters submitted before the court is.
Chapter X of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with the provisions relating to examination
of witnesses in court which are rendered competent and devoid of privileges may be
compelled to answer questions which are important to throw light upon the case. The
presumption which may be taken in respect to witnesses in the current chapter is the witness
who are not capable of deposing are rejected by the court and those considered compellable
along with their competency may be produced before the court for testimonial
acknowledgement. It provides a regulatory framework which has to be followed and cannot
be dispensed with by any court. Justice delayed is justice denied, nevertheless, if the trial in
courts are fast tracked, then the nature of statements and the falsity or the truth of a witness
may become hazy. The precision of screening the statements of persons called as witnesses
calls for a scrutiny which may take time when the process of their examination is conducted
in the courts. Otherwise, the malignant nature, motives and finally the truth may remain
hidden. Rules of procedure require some norms to be followed while the law simultaneously
calls for a speedy trial. The observations of the courts are related to the details of the
statements as well as witnesses themselves where they behave or choose to behave in a
manner favourable to themselves during the trial. It is the determination of truth in such cases
which might prove to be an onerous task for the courts and the judges. The testimony to
which a trial relates should not be ambiguous and not carried out in a disorderly fashion. The
introduction and the trial when carried out in a systematic manner helps the courts to look
into the existing as well as the emerging facts, their correctness and fairness to determine the
outcome in a trial. If a trial is carried in a disorderly manner, then the facts are all muddled
and clarity cannot emerge from such a situation. While considering the favourable witnesses,
a lawyer should also take care that they speak in a manner which befits the trial even though
they might be favourable to them. Some may scurry and others may make silly remarks,
which could lead to adverse situations being created. The testimony should be such as
clarifies the situation while maintaining a favourable attitude towards the side for whom the

5|Page
statement is being given. It might take a little more time but once clarity is brought in, the
lengthy trial is worth for justice to prevail. Examination of testimony by the courts, with
translucent statements and corroboration or nullifying false statements help in the truth of
matter stated to be considered and upheld by the courts.

Examination of Witnesses-
The provisions of law provide that production and examination of witnesses are to be
regulated by the law and practice in consonance with the civil and criminal procedure and
where these laws do not apply, it will be the discretion of the court to determine the same.
The party who in accordance with the law has the privilege of the right to begin shall produce
witnesses for the purpose of examination. The order of production of evidence will be
regulated by the criminal code in criminal cases and civil code in several cases. In criminal
law, the prosecution shall begin with its case whereas in civil cases, it is the framing of the
issues which will decide who has the right to begin. It is then the discretion of that
person/party to decide which witnesses are to be produced in his favour and the court
examines accordingly and arrive at a decision.
The judge shall then decide the admissibility of evidence. The order of examination of
witnesses is the party who calls a witness or the plaintiff or the aggrieved party filing the case
shall examine his witness and is known as examination-in-chief. The procedural law requires
it unless in a case the onus is on the defendant to start proving his claims. The examination of
a witness is then examined by the adverse party in dispute and is referred to as cross-
examination. The witness subsequently is examined again by the party who called him as his
witness and is referred to as re-examination. The procedural law requires questions to be put
to the witnesses in the manner as prescribed by the law. They may be asked or they may not
be asked or how leading questions are to be made to witnesses are all determined by the law.
Questions may be asked to the witness to test the veracity of the witness or to test his
statements whether it is truthful or not, and in certain cases witnesses may be compelled to
answer the questions put across and in others they have the privilege to deny to answer the
questions. The law also provides that questions which are not relevant to a case or are
unreasonable may not be asked while examining a witness. Questions which are indecent or
scandalous or intended to insult or to annoy may be forbidden by the court, which has the
discretion to do so. After a witness has been examined, questions which are corroborating
with other relevant facts presented in a case may also be made admissible. Former testimony
of a witness may also be used to corroborate with the later testimony with respect to the same
facts in a case. In certain cases memory may be refreshed of the witness either by reference to
a writing or a statement or any other evidence which may be present. It is finally the judge
who after taking into account all evidence present before him shall decide the admissibility of
evidence in all forms. The credibility of a witness may be impeached in case in any way it
may be shown to the discredit of a person as witness that the reliability is not good enough in
a case.

Process of examination of witnesses

The procedural law calls for a precise legal and systematic procedure for examination of
witnesses. The order of evidence is ruled by criminal and the civil law procedures in criminal
and civil cases respectively. It is the judge who shall decide as to the admissibility of
evidence as it is put forth by the parties. The order of calling the witnesses for testimony is

6|Page
that there shall be an examination-in-chief, cross examination and a re-examination of the
witnesses when the witnesses are called in by parties for examination. Leading questions that
is which suggest an answer to the questions asked may be put to witnesses during cross-
examination and the court permits this to be done. The court decides in most cases when the
witnesses may be compelled to answer questions (Sec 148) and questions which are
scandalous, indecent or intended to insult or annoy may be forbidden by the court (Sec 151-
152). The credit of a witness may be impeached by the adverse party by showing that the
witness is unworthy of credit, or showing that witness has been bribed or by proof of former
statements contradicted with the current statement (Sec 155). A witness may refresh his or
her memory by referring to anything which he feels will help him or her recall the facts (Sec
159). The powers of the judge to put questions or to order production of documents helps him
to arrive at a judgment based on the facts which are duly proved (Sec 165). The process of
examination of witnesses provides for character witnesses, calling for persons only to
produce documents and not be witnesses, whereby they may be questioned on the facts which
they have deposed to. The questions asked may be leading questions or otherwise. Their
testimony is subject to the scrutiny of the court where their testimony may be corroborated or
rejected, where they may be considered good witnesses or their credibility may be impeached
by the said process. The final decision lies with the judge to decide what testimonial
statement as evidence is admissible and what need not be considered to help find the truth in
the matter submitted.

EVIDENTARY VALUE OF STATEMENT GIVEN BY HOSTILE

WITNESS
The evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded as a whole. In 2012, the Hon’ble Apex
Court held 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.
In Balu Sonba Shindev v. State of Maharashtra, 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 in such acceptance.
In State of U.P v. Ramesh Prasad Mishra, it was held that it is equally settled law that the
evidence of a hostile witness would 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.
Factors Responsible for Problem of Witnesses Turning Hostile
The problem of witnesses turning hostile has become quite evident in present scenario many
times, it has seen that witnesses of police tends to turn adverse during the trial this result in
weakening of the case in the favour of the parties calling such witnesses. There are many
factors which are responsible for witnesses turning hostile. The main reason behind the
witnesses turning hostile are greed, fear etc. and in order to fulfil their greed and or overcome
their fear, the witnesses tend to turn hostile i.e. back out from their previous statement.
Following are the primary factors responsible for hostility of witnesses:

7|Page
 1. Absence of Witness Protection Program- In India there is no adequate legislation
regarding witness protection. With the increase in crime rate against witnesses it has
become very important to fulfil the need of Witness Protection Law or Witness
Protection Program. In order to stop witnesses from giving statements against the
criminals involving grave offences, witnesses are threatened, injured and even
murdered before giving evidence in the court of law. In the recent case of Aasa Ram
many witnesses were reported to be murdered who had made statement against the
accused. But neither action has been taken against people who murdered them nor any
step has been taken for the protection of remaining prosecution witnesses.
2. Unreasonable Delay in Judicial Proceeding- Apart from that absence of witness
protection legislation, the second factor responsible for hostility of witnesses is
protracted delay in trials. Due to delay in judicial proceedings, the witnesses become
frustrated over being summoned again and again to appear before the court therefore
to overcome such frustration the witness himself decides to turn hostile in order to
avoid such harassment. Apart from that absence of witness protection legislation, the
second factor responsible for hostility of witnesses is protracted delay in trials. Due to
delay in judicial proceedings, the witnesses become frustrated over being summoned
again and again to appear before the court therefore to overcome such frustration the
witness himself decides to turn hostile in order to avoid such harassment.
3. Grant of Bail to the Accused by the court- The third factor responsible for hostility of
witnesses is easy availability of bail to the accused involved in heinous crime. Many
times, in cases involving high profile personalities the court easily grants the bail to
such accuse involved in heinous crime who after coming out of the jail tries to supress
their guilt by threatening intimidating and bribing the accused and the witness because
of fear or greed decides to become hostile.
4. Payment of Inadequate Travelling Allowances-Every party who is calling the
witnesses to give testimony on his or her behalf, should pay a proper allowance to
their witnesses who are coming from far distance. Law Commission of India in its
154th Report19 observed that allowances such as travelling allowances paid to the
witness for his appearance before the court are very less and inadequate. Code of
Criminal Procedure 1973 under Section 312 has the provision regarding the payment
of expenses of complainant or witnesses attending the court by the state government.
It says ‘that subject to any rule made by State Government, any Criminal Court may,
if it thinks fit, order payment, on the part of the Government, of reasonable expenses
of any complainant or witnesses attending for the purpose of any enquiry trial or other
proceeding before such Court under this Code.

Witness Protection Bill, 2015

This bill was prepared and introduced in parliament in 2015. Its objective was to put in place
a strong law for witness protection in a manner which ensures a fair trial to both the parties.
The bill sought to ensure protection of witness by the following:

8|Page
 1. Formulation of witness protection programme to be provided to a witness at all stages
i.e. during the course of an investigation; during the process of trial; and after the
judgment is pronounced
2. Constitution of a “witness protection cell” to prepare a report for the judge of the trial
court to examine and grant protection to the witness referred a “protected” after being
admitted in the programme.
3. Constitution of National Witness Protection Council and State Witness Protection
Councils to ensure implementation of witness protection programme in its letter and
spirit.
4. Providing safeguards to ensure protection of Identity of witness
5. Providing transfer of cases out of original Jurisdiction to ensure that the witness can
depose freely
6. Providing stringent punishment to the persons contravening the provisions;
7. Prescribing stringent actions against false testimonies and misleading statements.

HOSTILE WITNESS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT

A witness might flip hostile for varied reasons, usually it is the combination of cash and
muscle power, threat / intimidation, inducement by various means that, allurement/seduction
etc. however the foremost one being the absence of protection to the witnesses throughout
and when the trial. The witness is frightened of facing the wrath of the convicts who could
also be well connected. Witnesses are a unit extremely liable to intimidation within the
variety of threats by the suspect. Today, hostility of witnesses in serious crimes and crimes
committed by „high profile‟ persons has challenged the system of criminal justice. As
discovered by the Apex Court: “increasingly folks basic cognitive process that laws are like
spider’s webs: if some light-weight or inundated issue falls into them, it's caught, however a
much bigger one will break through and acquire away”. Conducts that illegitimately have an
effect on the presentation of witness in proceedings before the courts ought to be seriously
and severely dealt with”.

1. The Sohrabuddin case

In the Sohrabuddin case, the following witnesses have turned hostile. One of the
passengers of the bus wherein Sohrabuddin, and his wife Kauser Bi along with associate
Tulsiram Prajapati were travelling in November 2005 from Hyderabad to Sangli was
Sharad Krushanji Apte who had deposed that he had seen them in the bus, but denied it
later. The bus driver Misbah Hyder, and the cleaner Gazuddin Chabuksawar, had initially
stated that the bus had been stopped by an SUV and that the police had taken them away.
However they later retracted their statement. The bus operator M J Tours provided CBI
with a photocopy of their tickets, but later denied issuing them. The person who had
hosted Sohrabuddin in Hyderabad later denied that he had stayed with them.
2. 2007 Mecca Masjid case
Lt Col Shrikant Purohit, who was an NIA witness in the Mecca Masjid case, subsequently
turned hostile and recanted his statement of having met the accused, Swami Aseemanand. In
Samjhauta Express and Ajmer Dargah blasts cases, almost 40 witnesses turned hostile, which
led to Aseemanand‟s acquittal.

9|Page
3. Salman Khan Hit & Run Case
In the 2002 hit-and-run case involving the superstar, an eyewitness who had claimed initially
that he had seen the actor exit the driver‟s seat, denied it in 2014.
4. Best Bakery Case
In this case, Zaheera Sheikh initially said that an armed mob had been chanting anti-Muslim
slogans, and spoke of “dance of death which continued all night”, but turned hostile later.
Four others also turned hostile. The Supreme Court sentenced her to a year’s imprisonment
for perjury, and has ordered that a retrial be held after the 21 accused were acquitted by both
the trial court and the High Court

Conclusion
A cursory glance at the testimonial witness law makes it apparent that witness law guided by
the legal principles calls for activism on the legislature and the judiciary to provide for
adequate measures to protect witnesses from turning hostile. A competent and satisfactory
evidence can only be procured where a trial calls for the same to throw light on the facts of a
case. The circumstances qualifying to provide the appropriate proof, needs to be acquired in a
safe environment. The test is of the authorities and the legal system to satisfy the ordinary
people testifying in extraordinary circumstances to offer truthful testimony for justice to
prevail. It is not difficult to perceive by the legal minds why testimonial failure takes place in
most of the cases. The testimony of such witnesses is not subtle nuances to be overlooked by
the adjudicators. The testimony offered, poses the danger of erroneous judgments and hence
failure of justice in the criminal trial. The err of testimony, adverse judgment and failure of
trial, advocates measures where caution and safety help in minimizing the same. A remedy is
called for, where a room for errors gets eliminated, and the legal procedure is carried out with
clarity in a safe environment for witnesses to depose their testimony. It is imperative in a trial
for the courts and judges to know the truthful facts from both the sides. Only a thorough
knowledge by both the prosecution and the defence can provide the same in which evidence
needs to be examined in a trial. This knowledge if based on a prominent witness but is too
scared to depose, hence turning hostile defeats the ends of justice. The need felt by a party to
impeach its own witness reflects not only on the witness but also on the system, where lack of
adequate legislative and adjudicatory measures are responsible for the same. It tends the party
to save its own back to discredit a witness which otherwise by truthful testimony would have
resulted in a speedy trial. It warrants the onset of repeated occurrences of a system leading to
judicial failures. Corruption and bias with onset of nullifying effects of testimony creates a
chaos where systematic legal trials turn towards those measures which ordinarily were not
contemplated by the legal system.

References
 Ratanlal & Dhirajlal’s, The Law of Evidence, Lexis Nexis, Butterworths Wadhwa,
21st Edn, New Delhi, 2009
 Cheif Justice M.Monir, The law of Evidence, Universal Law Publishers, 8Th Edn,
Delhi, 2012

10 | P a g e
 Prof. T. Battacharyya, Indian Penal Code, Central Law Agency, 7th Edn., Allahabad,
2013
 Prof. S.K. Mishra, The Code of Criminal Procedure, Allahabad Law Agency,2nd
Edn.,
 2013
 www.legalserviceindia.com by Dhru Desi
 www.lawctopus.com by Sinji, Articles on legal Issue, 14.2.2015
 www.jurisedge.com – by Jurisedge, 11.1.2017
 https://indiankanoon.org – 198th Report on Witness protection
 www.racolblegal.com by Gazal Talwar, Article on Witness Protection, 12.3.2016
 www.legallyindia.com by Kishitiz Karje, Silent Witness, 21.3.2016
 www.lawnn.com by Lawn, Protection Law for ensuring justice in India, 20.12.2017

11 | P a g e