Does declaring a prosecution witness hostile under Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 mean his evidence can no longer be relied upon at all?

No — being declared hostile does not completely efface a witness's evidence; the evidence remains admissible, and there is no legal bar to basing a conviction on it if it is corroborated by other reliable evidence on the record.

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s.154 — Hostile witness — Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s.3(2)(v), s.8(c) — Presumption of knowledge of caste — Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s.154 — Declaring a witness hostile — Only in special cases — Held: A small or insignificant omission from an earlier statement is not enough to declare a witness hostile; there must be material to show the witness bears hostile animus or is not speaking the truth. Being declared hostile does not completely efface a witness's evidence, and a conviction may still rest on such testimony if it is corroborated by other reliable evidence on the record. (¶9, 12) Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s.3(2)(v), s.8(c) — Presumption of knowledge of caste — Conviction affirmed — Held further: Under Section 8(c) of the Amendment Act, 2015, personal knowledge of the victim or the victim's family raises a presumption that the accused was aware of the victim's caste, unless the contrary is proved. Where such acquaintance stood established and nothing was brought on record to rebut the presumption, Section 3(2)(v) of the Act stood attracted, and finding no good reason to interfere with the concurrent conviction, the appeal was dismissed. (¶23, 24, 26)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of Shivkumar @ Baleshwar Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India