Hostile Witness Testimony: Evidence Cannot Be Rejected in Toto

Overview

In the Selvamani case, the Supreme Court clarified that the testimony of a hostile witness cannot be rejected in its entirety merely because the witness resiles from an earlier statement. Even if a witness turns hostile, the credible and corroborated portions of testimony may still be relied upon. The ruling reinforces a balanced and careful approach to evidence appreciation in criminal trials.

Key Points

• Hostile testimony is not automatically worthless.
• Evidence cannot be rejected in toto due to hostility.
• Courts must separate truthful portions from falsehood.
• Corroborated hostile testimony remains admissible.
• Evidence appreciation must be careful and selective.

Analysis

Hostility affects credibility but not admissibility. A witness turning hostile does not automatically render the entire testimony unusable in law.

There is no legal rule requiring total rejection of hostile testimony. Courts must assess whether parts of the statement remain reliable and consistent.

Judges are duty-bound to separate reliable evidence from exaggeration or falsehood. Selective acceptance ensures justice is not derailed by witness intimidation.

If corroborated by independent evidence, portions of hostile testimony can form the basis of conviction. Corroboration restores evidentiary value despite hostility.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that hostile witness testimony cannot be rejected in toto. Courts must evaluate such evidence carefully, discard unreliable portions, and rely on credible and corroborated segments. This balanced approach strengthens the truth-finding role of criminal courts and protects justice from technical rigidity.