Case Summary
| Citation | State of Bihar v. Laloo Prasad (2002) 9 SCC 626 |
| Keywords | Hostile witness, sec 154 IEA |
| Facts | The public prosecutor sought to designate a witness as hostile because the witness provided answers favoring the defence during cross-examination.However, the trial judge refused to allow the public prosecutor to cross-examine the witness, as per the judge’s order. During examination-in-chief by Public Prosecutor, Baleshwar Choudhary (Prosecution Witness) gave evidence and some evidence was unfavorable to Public Prosecutor (State). But the Public Prosecutor did not request the Court to declare him a “Hostile Witness”. During cross-examination Baleshwar Choudhary stated in favour of accused and against the State. At this stage, Public Prosecutor requested with Trial Court to declare him as a hostile witness. Trial Court rejected requested on the basis that request should have been made before cross- examination. High Court declined to interfere with the decision of Trial Court. Subsequently, the CBI., as the prosecuting authority, appealed to the Supreme Court through a special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. |
| Issues | Whether the public prosecutor can obtain permission of the Court to examine his own witness at any stage of the trial. |
| Contentions | |
| Law Points | Traditionally, when the public prosecutor requests permission to cross-examine a witness brought by them, the court typically grants it.However, in this case, the public prosecutor failed to seek permission at the conclusion of the chief examination, leading the trial judge to decline exercising discretion when permission was sought after cross-examination. If the public prosecutor had sought permission at the end of the chief examination itself, the trial court would have no good reason for declining the permission sought for. But the public prosecutor did not do so at that stage. That is precisely the reason why the trial judge declined to exercise his discretion when the permission was sought for after the cross-examination was over. It is again open to the public prosecutor to tell the court during final consideration that he is not inclined to own the evidence of any particular witness although said witness was examined on his side. When such options are available to a public prosecutor, it is not a useful exercise for this Court to consider whether the witness shall again be called back for the purpose of putting cross questions to him. |
| Judgement | Appeal was dismissed. No remedy was granted to State. Supreme Court declined to interfere with the decision of Trial Court, decision of Trial Court is good in the eye of law. |
| Ratio Decidendi & Case Authority | Section 154 of the IEA: 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. |
Full Case Details
K.T. THOMAS and S.N. VARIAVA, JJ. – 2. A witness was sought to be treated as
hostile by a Public Prosecutor on the ground that he gave answers in favour of the defence
during cross-examination. The trial Judge declined to permit the Public Prosecutor to crossexamine the witness as per an order passed by him. CBI which was prosecuting the case took
up the matter before the High Court. By the impugned judgment the High Court declined to
interfere. Hence this appeal by special leave.
3. We read the copy of the deposition of PW 39 (Baleshwar Choudhary) on whose
evidence the present controversy has arisen. He mentioned about a document executed in
1993 styling the same as a sale deed executed. After referring to the same in the chief
examination, the same witness further stated that he received the consideration thereof in
1983. The said last part of the chief examination is obviously not in consonance with the
prosecution case. But the Public Prosecutor did not choose to seek permission of the trial
court to put questions to the witness which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse
party. Hence the examination proceeded to the cross-examination by the adverse party. It was
in the cross-examination that the witness said further details of how he received the
consideration. At the said stage the Public Prosecutor requested for permission (after crossexamination was over) to treat the said witness as hostile.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant invited our attention to the decision of this Court in
Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat [AIR 1964 SC 1563] in support of his
contention that it is open to the party who calls the witness to seek the permission of the court
(as envisaged in Section 154 of the Evidence Act) at any stage of the examination.
6. Nonetheless, a discretion has been vested with the court whether to grant the
permission or not. Normally when the Public Prosecutor requested for permission to put
cross-questions to a witness called by him the court used to grant it. Here if the Public
Prosecutor had sought permission at the end of the chief examination itself the trial court
would have no good reason for declining the permission sought for. But the Public Prosecutor
did not do so at that stage. That is precisely the reason why the trial Judge declined to exercise
his discretion when the permission was sought for after the cross-examination was over. The
witness has said only the details in cross-examination regarding the matter which he said in
the chief examination itself. It would have been a different position if the witness stuck to his
version he was expected to say by the party who called the witness, in the examination-inchief, but he showed propensity to favour the adverse party only in cross-examination. In such
case the party who called him has a legitimate right to put cross-questions to the witness. But
if he resiled from his expected stand even in the chief examination the permission to put
cross-questions should have been sought then.
7. In the above situation we are unable to hold that the trial Judge has gone wholly wrong
in declining to exercise the discretion envisaged under Section 154 of the Evidence Act in
favour of the appellant. Be that as it may, if the Public Prosecutor is not prepared to own the
testimony of the witness examined by him he can give expression of it in different forms. One
177
of such forms is the one envisaged in Section 154 of the Evidence Act. The very fact that he
sought permission of the court soon after the end of the cross-examination was enough to
indicate his resolve not to own all what the witness said in his evidence. It is again open to the
Public Prosecutor to tell the court during final consideration that he is not inclined to own the
evidence of any particular witness in spite of the fact the said witness was examined on his
side. When such options are available to a Public Prosecutor, it is not a useful exercise for this
Court to consider whether the witness shall again be called back for the purpose of putting
cross-questions to him.
