In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has clarified that the testimony of a hostile witness is not limited to supporting a conviction alone; it may also be relied upon to acquit an accused if it creates reasonable doubt about the prosecution’s case. The Court held that merely because a witness turns hostile, their evidence does not become irrelevant, and the credible portion can be considered along with other evidence. This observation was made in Talari Naresh v. State of Telangana (2026 INSC 486).
Introduction
Criminal trials often witness prosecution witnesses turning hostile, especially in serious offences such as murder. Traditionally, the discussion around hostile witnesses has centred on whether portions of their testimony can still be used to convict the accused. However, the Supreme Court has now clarified an equally important legal principle: if hostile testimony is admissible to strengthen the prosecution when corroborated, it may also weaken the prosecution and support an acquittal when it creates credible doubt.
This ruling strengthens the criminal law principle that guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt and that evidentiary rules must serve the cause of justice rather than become mechanical tools of conviction.
Facts of the Case
The appeal arose from the conviction of Talari Naresh, who had been found guilty of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 103 BNS), along with other offences under the IPC and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The trial court had sentenced him to life imprisonment, and the High Court affirmed the conviction.
According to the prosecution, the deceased, Shiva Shankar, had earlier eloped with the appellant’s younger sister. A village Panchayat allegedly intervened and resolved the dispute by requiring the deceased to stay away from the village while the girl returned to her parental home.
On the day of the incident, Shiva Shankar allegedly returned to the village to attend a friend’s wedding. While passing near the appellant’s house with a companion, Narendar (PW3), he was confronted by the appellant. A quarrel allegedly broke out, during which the appellant assaulted the deceased with a stone.
The prosecution further claimed that PW3 informed the deceased’s mother, Padmamma (PW1), who rushed to the scene and allegedly witnessed the assault. She also claimed to have suffered injuries while intervening. The deceased later succumbed to his injuries while being transported to a hospital.
Issues Before the Supreme Court
The principal questions before the Court were:
- Whether the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt;
- Whether the testimony of hostile witnesses could be used in evaluating the prosecution case;
- Whether the conviction could be sustained on the testimony of interested witnesses amid contradictions;
- Whether the medical and investigative evidence supported the prosecution narrative.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court undertook a detailed reappreciation of the evidence and found serious infirmities in the prosecution’s case. The Court noted that the prosecution’s story substantially depended upon two witnesses: PW1 (mother of the deceased) and PW3 (the alleged eyewitness companion of the deceased).
However, PW3 turned hostile and contradicted the prosecution’s central narrative. Instead of supporting the claim that he had witnessed the assault and informed PW1, he stated that the deceased had asked him to leave and that he simply returned home. He specifically denied going to PW1’s house to inform her about the incident.
This contradiction struck at the heart of the prosecution’s story. The Court also found that the alleged Panchayat, said to be the motive behind the crime, was not established. Witnesses who were expected to support the existence of such a Panchayat turned hostile and denied any such meeting.
Thus, both the prosecution’s claimed motive and sequence of occurrence suffered substantial collapse.
Hostile Witness Testimony: Supreme Court’s Landmark Clarification
The most significant contribution of this judgment lies in its clarification regarding hostile witness testimony. The Court reiterated the settled principle that declaring a witness hostile does not make their entire evidence inadmissible. A hostile witness’s testimony remains part of the evidentiary record and may be relied upon to the extent it is credible.
Referring to earlier precedents including Khujji v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Koli Lakhmanbhai Chanabhai v. State of Gujarat, Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana, and Himanshu alias Chintu v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Court reaffirmed that a conviction may be based on reliable portions of hostile testimony where corroboration exists.
However, the Court took the principle one step further. It held that if hostile testimony can be used to convict, the same evidentiary logic must also permit its use for acquittal.
The Court observed in substance that hostile testimony may be employed to discredit the prosecution’s case where it inspires confidence and aligns with other evidence on record. Thus, hostile testimony is not a one-directional prosecutorial tool; it is neutral evidentiary material to be judicially assessed.
This is a highly significant doctrinal clarification.
Related and Interested Witness Doctrine
The prosecution also relied heavily on PW1, the deceased’s mother. The defence argued that she was an interested witness and that her testimony required cautious scrutiny.
The Supreme Court clarified that the testimony of a related witness cannot be discarded solely because of the relationship. Courts have long recognised that close relatives may often be natural witnesses.
However, the Court also emphasised that when such testimony suffers from contradictions and lacks corroboration, greater caution becomes necessary.
Relying upon Masalti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court reiterated that evidence of interested witnesses must be carefully weighed for genuineness, probability, and consistency.
The Court also referred to Bhaskarrao v. State of Maharashtra, which highlighted that the testimony of interested witnesses must not be mechanically equated with independent testimony.
Applying these principles, the Court found PW1’s version doubtful because:
- her account depended on PW3’s alleged conduct, which PW3 denied;
- material parts of her version stood contradicted;
- independent corroboration was absent.
As a result, her testimony lost reliability.
Absence of Independent Witnesses
One major factor that weighed against the prosecution was the absence of independent witnesses. Evidence showed that the alleged incident occurred on a busy public road near quarries with continuous vehicular movement, including trucks and lorries.
If the prosecution’s version were true, the Court observed, independent witnesses should reasonably have been available. Yet none were examined.
This omission became significant because the prosecution was already facing evidentiary contradictions. The Court found that the failure to produce available independent witnesses further weakened the prosecution’s case.
Medical Evidence Under Scrutiny
The Court also found the medical evidence deeply problematic. The prosecution relied upon the postmortem report and the doctor’s testimony to establish the cause of death.
However, glaring inconsistencies emerged:
- The inquest report and postmortem report reflected conflicting dates;
- timings did not reconcile;
- the doctor failed to satisfactorily explain discrepancies;
- the wound certificate lacked a date.
The Court emphasised the settled principle that a postmortem report by itself is not substantive evidence. It merely supports the testimony of the medical expert.
For this proposition, reliance was placed on Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey.
Because the medical expert could not convincingly explain the contradictions, the medical evidence’s evidentiary value was severely diminished.
Investigative Lapses
The Court also noted shortcomings in the investigation. The investigating officer admitted that the crime scene was visited only on the following day. This meant the scene was not preserved.
Such a delay raised concerns regarding the integrity of physical evidence, including the recovery of the stone allegedly used in the offence. Where prosecution evidence is already shaky, investigative lapses become even more consequential.
Supreme Court’s Final Decision
After analysing the totality of evidence, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Court concluded that:
- the occurrence itself became doubtful;
- motive was not proved;
- eyewitness testimony collapsed;
- hostile witness evidence damaged the prosecution;
- medical evidence lacked reliability;
- independent corroboration was absent.
Accordingly, the Court held that the trial court and High Court committed concurrent error in convicting the appellant.
The conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted with a direction for immediate release unless required in any other case.