Sometimes a witness makes statements against the interest of the party who has called him. In such cases, it becomes necessary that he should be cross-examined by that very party to demolish his stand. Section 157 BSA (Section 154 IEA) provides that the Court may, in its discretion, permit the party who has called a witness to put to him such questions as could have been asked in cross-examination by the adverse party.

The principle is that a witness, whether called by one party or another, should not be given more credit than he really deserves. Cross-examination under this section therefore allows:

1. Leading questions

2. Questions relating to previous statements in writing, and

3. Questions testing veracity or credit.

Meaning of Hostile Witness

Although the term 'hostile witness' is not expressly used in Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam/Indian Evidence Act, it refers to a witness who, from his manner of giving evidence, shows that he is not desirous of telling the truth to the Court. A witness gained over by the opposite party may also be treated as hostile.

A witness cannot be declared hostile merely because:

1. His testimony does not support the party calling him or differs from other witnesses.

2. He was not produced out of fear of being unfavourable.

3. He gives inconsistent or contradictory answers (e.g., a different version at trial than before the Magistrate).

When May a Witness Be Declared Hostile?

Hostility is inferred from the demeanour, attitude, or inconsistent answers of the witness. A prosecution witness may be declared hostile when he resiles from his previous statement under Sections 161 or 164 CrPC, or when he makes statements destructive of the prosecution case.

Discretion of the Court under Section 157 BSA (Section 154 IEA)

Permission to cross-examine one’s own witness is not a matter of right. It is entirely at the discretion of the Court. The Court may allow such cross-examination whenever it is expedient to extract the truth and do justice. In Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1976 SC 294, the Supreme Court held that discretion is to be liberally exercised when the witness’s conduct or previous statements indicate that cross-examination is necessary to discover the truth.

Even without formally declaring hostility, the Court may permit cross-examination when the adverse party has elicited new matter during cross-examination.

Evidentiary Value of a Hostile

Witness The testimony of a hostile witness is not automatically rejected. The Court may accept those portions which inspire confidence and are corroborated by other evidence. Important case law includes:

- Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa (1977) – Hostile testimony can be relied upon to the extent it is trustworthy.

- State of U.P. v. Ramesh Pal Mishra, (1996) – Hostile testimony requires close scrutiny; consistent portions may be accepted.

- Ramesh Harijan v. State of U.P. (2012) – The court held that hostile testimony can still form the basis of conviction if corroborated.