Karnataka High Court Upholds Trial Court’s Decision
In a recent ruling, the Karnataka High Court has rejected the plea by the State to cross-examine Rathnaprabha, the mother of murder victim Renukaswamy. The court upheld the trial court’s earlier decision, emphasizing the limits of declaring a witness hostile and the appropriate application of Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act. The case in question is State of Karnataka Vs Pavitra Gowda & others, which involves notable individuals such as actors Darshan and Pavithra Gowda.
Understanding Section 154 of the Evidence Act
Presiding over the case, Justice M Nagaprasanna clarified that a witness cannot be considered hostile simply because their testimony does not align perfectly with the summoning party’s expectations. The court cited Section 154, which allows the trial court discretion to permit parties to question their own witnesses as if in cross-examination, but warned against using this as a fallback to correct unsatisfactory outcomes from the initial examination.
“If every inconvenient answer or minor deviation were sufficient to invoke Section 154, the integrity of examination-in-chief would be compromised,” Justice Nagaprasanna remarked. He further noted that the prosecution failed to utilize the statutory remedy of re-examination in a timely manner, and thus cannot resort to Section 154 to amend previous oversights.
Background on the Case
The case revolves around the murder of 33-year-old Renukaswamy, whose body was discovered on June 9, 2024. Allegations suggest he was brutally attacked after sending inappropriate messages to Pavithra Gowda, leading to a fatal assault allegedly instigated by Darshan. The prosecution claims Darshan and Pavithra maintained communication during the incident, implicating them in the crime.
The prosecution called Rathnaprabha as a witness to substantiate its allegations. However, after some contradictory statements during her examination-in-chief, they sought to declare her a hostile witness, a move the trial court denied.
More Read
Arguments and Court’s Conclusion
The accused, including Darshan, opposed the State’s plea, arguing that Rathnaprabha’s testimony largely supported the prosecution’s narrative, and that minor inconsistencies should not be grounds for hostility. The High Court, in its August 18 judgment, agreed, stating that trivial inconsistencies do not constitute hostility.
Justice Nagaprasanna highlighted that Rathnaprabha had neither substantially departed from her initial statements nor shown any allegiance shift from the prosecution to the defense. “A stray statement cannot be metamorphosed into hostility,” the court observed.
The court further clarified that although Indian law does not require a formal declaration of hostility to invoke Section 154, this does not grant an unrestricted right to cross-examine one’s witness. The High Court found no compelling reason to exercise discretion under Section 154 in this instance and thus dismissed the State’s application.
Legal Representation
Special Public Prosecutor P Prasanna Kumar represented the State, while senior counsel Hasmath Pasha, along with advocates Kariappa NA, Sudhanva DS, and Ranganath Reddy, represented Darshan and other accused.
The Court’s decision underscores the importance of maintaining the procedural integrity of witness examination and the careful consideration required when attempting to declare a witness hostile.
