Hostile witness and impeaching the credit of a witness

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam · Unit V · Topic 25 of 26 · 7 min read

Section 157 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam on questions by a party to his own witness, the value of hostile evidence from Sat Pal and Bhagwan Singh to Vinod Kumar, contradiction by previous statements under section 148 and section 181 BNSS (Tahsildar Singh), and the modes of impeaching credit in section 158, with the hostile rape witness problem.

← All Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam topics Past papers

On this page

1. Hostile, adverse and unfavourable witnesses
2. Section 157
3. Contradiction by previous statements: section 148
4. Impeaching credit: section 158
5. Problem
How this is examined

Cases checked to exist. Read the judgment before quoting a holding.

Every case cited here has been checked to exist — the citation resolves and names the right parties. The propositions attributed to each case have not been verified line by line against the judgment. Case names link through to the full judgment: read it before quoting a holding in an examination answer, and never carry a proposition from notes into court on trust.

“Hostile” is not a word in the Adhiniyam. Section 157 does not require the Court to declare a witness hostile; it lets the Court permit a party to put to his own witness any question that the other side could put in cross-examination. The settled rule from the cases is that the evidence of such a witness is not wiped out: the Court may rely on the parts of it that are creditworthy. The BSA writes that rule into section 157(2).

1. Hostile, adverse and unfavourable witnesses

English law distinguished an unfavourable witness (one who fails to prove what was expected) from a hostile witness (one who is not desirous of telling the truth at the instance of the party calling him). Only a hostile witness could be cross-examined by his own side. The Indian provision is wider. The Court’s permission may be given whenever it considers it necessary for the truth to come out: when the witness resiles from his earlier statement, shows an evident animus against the party calling him, is evasive, or suppresses facts.

2. Section 157

Section 157(1) (old s.154(1)): the Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. That means leading questions, questions to test veracity and shake credit (section 149), and contradiction with previous statements (section 148). Section 157(2) (old s.154(2), added in 2005): nothing in the section disentitles the party so permitted to rely on any part of the evidence of that witness.

Sat Pal v. Delhi Administration, 1975 INSC 233, (1976) 1 SCC 727. The Court explained that the discretion under section 154 is unqualified and does not depend on a prior finding that the witness is hostile; that the terms “hostile” and “adverse” are not used in the Act; and that the evidence of a witness cross-examined by the party calling him is not to be rejected wholesale. The Court must consider it with caution and accept what is corroborated or otherwise credible.
Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana, 1975 INSC 306, (1976) 1 SCC 389. The fact that the prosecution cross-examined its own witness does not make his evidence unworthy of belief; the Court may rely on the part supporting the prosecution if it finds it true.
Khujji v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1991 INSC 153, (1991) 3 SCC 627. The evidence of a witness declared hostile is not effaced or washed off the record; it remains admissible and the part that is dependable can be acted upon.
State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra, 1996 INSC 881, (1996) 10 SCC 360. The same principle applied in a dowry murder: the evidence of hostile witnesses, to the extent it supports the prosecution, may be accepted.
Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab, 2015 INSC 956, (2015) 3 SCC 220. A key witness supported the prosecution in chief, but his cross-examination was deferred for many months, after which he turned hostile. The Court relied on his examination-in-chief, read with other evidence, and condemned the practice of long adjournments between chief and cross-examination which allows witnesses to be won over.

3. Contradiction by previous statements: section 148

Section 148 (old s.145): a witness may be cross-examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing, relevant to matters in question, without the writing being shown to him or proved. But if it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention must, before the writing is proved, be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose. This gives the witness a chance to explain the inconsistency.

Statements to the police during investigation are recorded under section 180 BNSS (old s.161 CrPC). Section 181(1) BNSS (old s.162) bars their use for any purpose except that the accused, and with the Court’s permission the prosecution, may use them to contradict a prosecution witness in the manner provided by section 148 BSA. In Tahsildar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1959 INSC 53, AIR 1959 SC 1012, the Court held that only a statement that is contradictory can be used, and that an omission amounts to a contradiction only where what is omitted is so related to what is recorded that it is by necessary implication inconsistent with it. So where a prosecution witness turns hostile, the Public Prosecutor, with leave under section 157, uses this route to confront him with his police statement.

4. Impeaching credit: section 158

Section 158 (old s.155): the credit of a witness may be impeached by the adverse party, or, with the consent of the Court, by the party who calls him:

(a) by the evidence of persons who testify that, from their knowledge of the witness, they believe him to be unworthy of credit;
(b) by proof that the witness has been bribed, or has accepted the offer of a bribe, or any other corrupt inducement to give his evidence;
(c) by proof of former statements inconsistent with any part of his evidence which is liable to be contradicted.

The Explanation: a witness declaring another unworthy of credit may not give his reasons in chief, but may be asked them in cross-examination; his answers cannot be contradicted, though he may be prosecuted if they are false. Old clause (d), which allowed a rape prosecutrix to be shown to be of generally immoral character, was deleted in 2003 and does not appear in the BSA. Impeachment differs from contradiction: contradiction shows that a particular statement is wrong; impeachment attacks the witness as a person to be believed at all.

Credit may also be confirmed: section 160 allows former consistent statements to be proved to corroborate a witness, and section 161 allows statements under sections 26 and 27 to be contradicted or corroborated.

Trap. A hostile witness is not a liar by definition, and permission under section 157 does not make his whole evidence worthless. Never write that the Court must reject the evidence of a witness declared hostile. Equally, a previous inconsistent statement used under section 148 only discredits him; the police statement does not become substantive evidence.

5. Problem

In a prosecution for rape, a prosecution witness who had told the police that he saw the accused drag the victim into a shed now says in Court that he saw nothing. Can the prosecution cross-examine him, and what use can be made of his evidence?

Issue. Whether a party can cross-examine its own witness, and the value of the evidence.

Law. Sections 157, 148 and 158(c) BSA; section 181(1) BNSS; Sat Pal; Khujji; Tahsildar Singh.

Application. The witness has resiled from his earlier statement on the central fact. The Public Prosecutor may ask the Court’s permission under section 157 to put questions that the defence could put in cross-examination. With permission he may put leading questions and confront the witness with his police statement, drawing his attention to the relevant part under section 148, as the proviso to section 181(1) BNSS allows. The contradiction impeaches his credit under section 158(c). The police statement does not itself prove that the accused dragged the victim. Any part of the witness’s evidence that supports the prosecution (for example, that he saw the accused in the area that evening) can still be relied on if corroborated, under section 157(2).

Conclusion. Yes, with the Court’s permission. The witness’s evidence is not wiped out; the Court will weigh the creditworthy parts, and the case will turn mainly on the victim’s own testimony, which can found a conviction if it inspires confidence (Gurmit Singh).

How this is examined

“Write a note on hostile witness” (June 2025, Law of Evidence) and the hostile rape witness problem (February 2025) are recent. Impeaching the credit of a witness is a standing short note. For hostile witness, cover the meaning, section 157(1) and (2), the cases from Sat Pal to Vinod Kumar, and contradiction under section 148 with section 181 BNSS.

Now try the real questions: Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam past question papers.