Case Note & Summary
The State of Karnataka filed a criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging an order dated 17-01-2026 passed by the LVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in S.C.No.1319 of 2024. The trial court had rejected the prosecution's oral request to cross-examine its own witness PW-1 under Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The case arose from Crime No.250 of 2024 registered at Kamakshipalya Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, based on a complaint by Keval Ram Dorji, a security officer who discovered a male body near Sattva Anugraha Apartment on 09-06-2024. The deceased was identified as Renukaswamy. Investigation led to the arrest of several accused persons, initially accused Nos.4, 15 to 17, and later a larger conspiracy involving accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 14. After committal and framing of charges, the prosecution examined CW-8 as PW-1, who was the mother of the deceased, and marked documents Exhibits P1 to P13 and material objects 1 to 8. During cross-examination by the accused, PW-1 allegedly gave statements contrary to the material on record and her examination-in-chief, which were marked as Exhibits D1 to D22. The prosecution then made an oral request to cross-examine PW-1 under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, contending that the witness had contradicted herself on material aspects such as the identification of the body through an ID card, tower location and CDR details, and the nature of weapon and wounds. The trial court rejected the request, stating that the prosecution could not cross-examine its own witness without declaring the witness hostile. The State argued before the High Court that Section 154 permits a party to question its own witness and that the court has discretion to allow such cross-examination, especially where the witness resiles from previous statements. The defence contended that PW-1 had largely supported the prosecution case and that vague contradictions do not justify cross-examination, and that permission under Section 154 is discretionary rather than mandatory. The High Court, after examining the deposition excerpts and the submissions, held that the trial court erred in rejecting the request without considering the specific contradictions in the witness's evidence. It observed that formal declaration of hostility is not a prerequisite under Section 154, and that the trial court should have exercised its discretion judiciously by examining the contradictions. Consequently, the High Court allowed the criminal petition, set aside the trial court's order dated 17-01-2026, and permitted the prosecution to cross-examine PW-1 under Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Inherent Powers - Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - High Court's power to interfere in interlocutory orders - Petition filed against trial court order dated 17-01-2026 rejecting prosecution's request to cross-examine PW-1 - Court considered whether trial court's rejection was arbitrary and contrary to Section 154 Evidence Act - Held that trial court's refusal without analyzing deposition contradictions was erroneous and warranted interference under Section 482 CrPC (Paras 1-3, 9). B) Evidence - Hostile Witness - Cross-examination of own witness under Section 154 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Discretion of court - Prosecution examined PW-1 who later in cross-examination by accused made statements contrary to examination-in-chief and material on record - Prosecution sought permission to cross-examine PW-1 - Trial court rejected on ground that witness not declared hostile - Held that Section 154 permits cross-examination of own witness if witness resiles or contradicts, and formal declaration of hostility is not a prerequisite; trial court should have exercised discretion after examining contradictions (Paras 5-9). C) Criminal Trial - Witness Examination - Contradictions in deposition - Effect of prosecution witness's contradictory statements - PW-1's cross-examination revealed contradictions regarding ID card, tower location, and weapon/wound - These contradictions would prejudice prosecution case - Held that prosecution is entitled to cross-examine witness to clarify contradictions; refusal causes miscarriage of justice (Paras 5-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting prosecution's oral request to cross-examine PW-1 under Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, without declaring the witness hostile, and whether the High Court under Section 482 CrPC should set aside the order and permit cross-examination.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the criminal petition, set aside the trial court's order dated 17-01-2026, and permitted the prosecution to cross-examine PW-1 under Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Law Points
- Under Section 154 of Indian Evidence Act
- 1872
- a party may with permission of court cross-examine its own witness if witness proves adverse
- court has discretion to permit cross-examination
- not mandatory
- prosecution need not first declare witness hostile
- contradictions in deposition require consideration
- Section 482 CrPC can be used to correct jurisdictional errors in trial court orders
- trial court must exercise discretion judiciously.
