The Karnataka High Court has refused to allow the prosecution to cross-examine Renukaswamy’s mother after she gave certain answers during her examination-in-chief that did not fully align with the State’s case.
Justice M Nagaprasanna upheld the trial court’s decision, stressing that a witness does not become hostile simply because some portions of their testimony are inconvenient to the party that called them.
The Court observed that Section 154 of the Evidence Act, which permits a court to allow a party to question its own witness in the manner of cross-examination, cannot be used as a second opportunity to repair weaknesses in the original examination.
According to the Court, allowing such a course whenever a witness gives an unexpected answer would undermine the very purpose of examination-in-chief.
“If every inconvenient answer, minor deviation or stray omission” were enough to invoke Section 154, the Court noted, examination-in-chief would lose its character.
The Court further pointed out that the prosecution had the option of seeking re-examination to clarify aspects of the witness’s evidence. Since that opportunity was not exercised within the appropriate stage, Section 154 could not be invoked as an alternative route to address the perceived deficiencies.
The ruling came in the State’s challenge to the trial court’s refusal to permit cross-examination of Rathnaprabha, the mother of Renukaswamy, in the ongoing murder trial involving actor Darshan, Pavithra Gowda and others.
The prosecution had relied on Rathnaprabha as one of its witnesses. During her examination-in-chief, however, she made certain statements that the State considered contradictory to its case. The prosecution consequently sought permission to treat her as hostile and cross-examine her.
The accused opposed the request, maintaining that Rathnaprabha had not abandoned the prosecution’s case and that isolated or unclear answers could not by themselves justify cross-examination by the party that had summoned her.
The High Court agreed.
The Court found that Rathnaprabha had not completely departed from her earlier version or disowned the basic foundation of the prosecution’s case. There was also no clear indication that she had shifted allegiance to the defence.
The Court cautioned against turning individual answers into evidence of hostility.
“Inconvenience is not hostility; discrepancy is not disloyalty; and an isolated departure is not necessarily an abandonment of the case,” the Court held.
It added that a stray statement cannot automatically be treated as hostility, nor can an unguarded answer provide a basis for permitting the prosecution to cross-examine its own witness.
The Court clarified that the law does not insist on a formal declaration that a witness is “hostile” before Section 154 can be considered. At the same time, this does not mean that parties have an unrestricted right to cross-examine their own witnesses whenever their testimony becomes inconvenient.
On the facts of the case, the High Court found no sufficient reason to exercise the discretion available under Section 154 and dismissed the State’s plea.
Background to the Renukaswamy Case
Renukaswamy, 33, was found dead in June 2024. The prosecution alleges that he was attacked following messages he had allegedly sent to Pavithra Gowda.
The State’s case is that Darshan’s associates confronted Renukaswamy and that he was assaulted with various objects, resulting in fatal injuries. The prosecution has also alleged that Darshan and Pavithra remained in contact during the events surrounding the alleged attack.
The murder trial against Darshan, Pavithra Gowda and the other accused is currently underway.
The High Court’s latest ruling leaves intact the trial court’s decision not to permit the prosecution to cross-examine Renukaswamy’s mother under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.
