C
Commercialpedia Indian Railways commercial circulars and policies

Where Witness Turned Hostile - Some Typical Case Study

Currency not verifiedCircularparcel
Currency not verified. Nobody has confirmed whether this circular is still in force. Check the present position before relying on it. The official Railway Board PDF always prevails over anything shown here.

No official Railway Board PDF has been traced for this entry yet. The text below was read from the document held in the library.

TypeCommercial Circular
Topicparcel
CurrencyCurrency not verified

Summary

witness as hostile witness as he was contradicting his own

Text of the circular

<!-- Slide number: 1 -->
# Where Witness Turned Hostile -  Some Typical Case Study
By

G. Dhanasekaran, Dy.CEE/EMU/HQ

<!-- Slide number: 2 -->
  A hostile witness is one who deposes against the party who
   produced him before the enquiry authority.

  There is no proposition of law that a witness not partial or
   partisan in favour of the party calling him is on that ground alone
   to be treated as hostile.

  The test is whether the witness desires to tell the truth and it is
    for his purpose that the court is given discretion to permit the
    person calling him to cross-examine him.

  The usual cases of hostile witnesses are those in which they go
   back upon the previous statements made by them, but that is
   not the only contingency and, therefore, though a hostile witness
   is unfriendly to prosecution he need not be untruthful.

<!-- Slide number: 3 -->
  Though in the case of hostile witnesses, the court may permit
   questions by way of cross-examination but it does not mean that
   their evidence becomes untrustworthy.

  Simply because a witness is hostile  his evidence does not
   become worthless.

  The definition that hostile witness is one who is not desirous of
    telling the truth is dead and buried and must be forgotten.

  If the testimony of a witness is adverse to the party calling him
   and he is given a chance to cross-examine then it is not correct
   that his evidence cannot be believed in part and disbelieved in
   part and must be excluded from consideration altogether and
   either side may rely on his evidence and the whole of the
   evidence in so far as it affects both parties favourably or
   unfavourably must be considered for what it is worth.

<!-- Slide number: 4 -->
# Case Study

<!-- Slide number: 5 -->
  Vigilance has conducted a check to verify source information
    that commercial staff demands & accepts money for tea
    expenses to unload two-wheelers from parcel vans.

  Parcel porter was trapped by vigilance.

  Two RPF constables, Three CVI’s formed the trap team.

  Parcel clerk on duty was taken as witness after the porter
    was trapped.

  SW-4, a CVI booked the two-wheeler from Station A to Station
    B on behalf of SW-2 (RPF constable).

  SW-2 taken delivery of two-wheeler duly signed
    the LT and registered.

<!-- Slide number: 6 -->
  SW-2 asked the CO to push the two-wheeler up to the main
    gate from platform.

  Then, the CO (Parcel porter) demanded and accepted Rs.20 /-
    for tea expenses.

  Out of six Prosecution witnesses, three are CVIs – partisan /
    Interested witness.

  Two RPF constables are accomplice.

  The last one, Parcel clerk on duty alone independent of the
    check, available in scene brought as Prosecution witness.

  At the enquiry, before EO, the Parcel clerk denied to confirm
   some portion of his written statement executed at the time of
   check.

<!-- Slide number: 7 -->
  He stated under vigilance pressure, he executed such
   statement.

  He  denied the money was  recovered from CO, but stated that
    it was picked up from PF by one of the CVIs.

  After examination, the PO submitted to IO to declare the
   witness as hostile witness as he was contradicting his own
   statement.

  IO after taking into consideration of the nature of deposition
    declared the witness as hostile.

  CO was allowed to cross-examine the witness.

  Then PO was allowed to cross-examine the witness.

<!-- Slide number: 8 -->
  The IO in his report stated that the statement executed by
   Parcel clerk at the time of check was more reliable than his
   deposition at the enquiry.

  It has come on record that in case of two-wheelers booked
    against LT, the passenger takes delivery of the item in the
    platform itself and once he signs the documents and takes
    delivery of the vehicle, Railway staff’s duty & responsibility
    ceases.

  The demand by the Porter was to bring the vehicle to the main
    gate was not part of the du

Extract shown above; the full text is available in the search app.

Related circulars

Search the whole library

Open this circular in the search app · Search all 4,025 documents