Supreme Court of India· 14 October 2025

Under Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, on what basis can a court permit the prosecution to cross-examine its own witness by declaring the witness hostile?

Shivkumar @ Baleshwar Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.4502 OF 2025 · CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.4502 OF 2025
Coram: K. V. Viswanathan; B.V. Nagarathna

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow s.3(2)(v), s.8(c) Scheduled Cast…📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

There must be material to show that the witness bears hostile animus against the party for whom he is deposing, or has resiled from an earlier material statement; a small or insignificant omission is not enough, and the court must scan and weigh the circumstances properly rather than grant permission in a casual or routine manner.

Headnote

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)

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 9We are at a loss to understand as to why the witness was treated as hostile in the first place? We are frequently coming across cases where the prosecutor, for no ostensible reason, wants to treat the witnesses hostile and the Court indiscriminately grants permission. It is well settled, by judgments of this Court, that before a witness can be declared hostile and the party examining the witnesses is allowed to cross-examine, there must be some material to show that the witnesses are not speaking the truth or has exhibited an element of hostility to the party for whom he is deposing. No doubt, the circumstances under which the Court will exercise the discretion under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 157 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023) and permit the party calling the witness to put any question which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. However, this Court has held that the contingency of cross- examining the witness by the party calling, is an extraordinary phenomenon and permission should be given only in special cases. Small or insignificant omissions cannot be the basis for treating the witnesses hostile and the Court before exercising its discretion must scan and weigh the circumstances properly and ought not to exercise its discretion in a casual or routine manner.

Paragraph 10In Sri Rabindra Kumar Dey Vs. State of Orissa[^1], this Court held as under: -

Acts & Sections

s.3(2)(v), s.8(c) Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989s.4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012ss.363, 366, 376, 506 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.154 Indian Evidence Act, 1872s.164 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

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.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

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?Under Section 8(c) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, what is presumed about an accused's knowledge of a victim's caste, and how can that presumption be displaced?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections