The main legal point established in the judgment is the criteria for treating a witness as hostile under Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, emphasizing that discrepancies in witness testimony may not necessarily amount to hostility.

1. This is a case where one of the prosecution witness, also a relative to the accused in the disproportionate asset case has sailed with the prosecution in the chief-examination, however, in the cross-examination, he has thrown details regarding the jewels sold by his mother, who happened to be the mother of one of the accused. Since the prosecution has thought that the witness clever enough to sail with the prosecution in chief-examination, had turned hostile to the prosecution in the cross- examination. Hence, he has to be treated as hostile witness under Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act and allowed to cross-examine him.

2. When the learned Public Prosecutor before the Trial Court made a request to treat the witness as hostile, the Trial Court after perusing the previous statements of the witness recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C found that there is no material to treat the witness as hostile. The reasoning for declining the request is recorded in the deposition of the witness itself.

3. The State which has preferred this petition challenging the order of the Trial Court would submit that the witness PW.8-Swaminathan, in its previous statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., had not whispered about the jewels held by his mother. In fact, in his further statement, he has categorically state that he does not know where his mother sold the gold jewels worth several lakhs. Whereas in the cross-examination, he has stated that at the request of his mother, he sold 80 sovereign of jewels for Rs.2,40,000/-and gave the money to her. Again he sold 110 sovereign of jewels for Rs.3,50,000/- and gave to her. Since, this portion which has been elucidated during cross-examination is not only a new fact but also contradict to the previous statements of the witness.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the Trial Court has not considered the portion of contradiction which has been deposed by this witness detrimental to the prosecution. The hostility of the witness well exposed in cross-examination hence, the witness ought to treated as hostile. Further, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that in the chief-examination also, PW.8 has not stated about the details of the jewels. Except mentioning to the investigating officer that his mother sold her jewels for few thousand rupees, he has said that he does not know to whom she sold and for how much she sold. Whereas in the cross-examination, contrary to his own version in the chief-examination, the witness has specified the quantum of jewels, value of jewels and has also deposed that he sold the jewels on behalf of his mother. This clearly establishes hostility and therefore, the order of the Trial Court declining the request to treat the witness as hostile has to be set aside.

5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there is difference between hostility and unfavorable statement of the witness. The facts elucidated during cross-examination of the prosecution witness may be unfavourable to the prosecution, but, it does not fall within the category of hostility. After allowing the witness to be cross-examined by the accused, requested to treat him as hostile cannot be entertained for the sake of asking.

6. The Trial Court has come to the right conclusion after comparing the previous statement and declined the request of the prosecution which is in consonance of law and judgments of Apex Court. Hence, there is no circumstances to interfere the order of the Trial Court.

7. Both the counsels appearing for the respondents and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor had assisted this Court with judgments rendered by the Supreme Court and other High Courts relevant to the issue.

8. Section 154 of Indian Evidence Act, enables a person to question his own witness. Section 154 reads thus:

Question by party to his own witness

“The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any question