Actor Darshan case: No need to cross-examine Renukaswamy’s mother as she has not turned hostile, says Karnataka High Court

The High Court of Karnataka on Tuesday upheld the trial court’s order. It had found that answers given by murder victim Renukaswamy’s mother to the questions posed by defence counsel for accused actor Darshan and others, are “not manifest antipathy towards prosecution case” that warrant her cross examination by the prosecution under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.

“A stray statement cannot be metamorphosed into hostility, nor can an unguarded answer become a passport for the prosecution to cross-examine its own witness,” the High Court observed.

It observed that “a cumulative consideration of the deposition of PW-1 “(mother of deceased Renukaswamy), her examination-in-chief and cross-examination, and the law declared by the apex court…., no circumstance emerges which could compel, or even warrant, exercise of discretion under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.”

Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the order while rejecting a petition filed by the prosecution to cross-examine deceased’s mother under Section 154. It allows “question by party to his own witness”, without treating her as a “hostile witness” but to elicit correct information, as her answer to defence questions was contrary to the materials on record.

“The PW-1 has neither turned her back upon the prosecution nor crossed over to the adversary. She has not completely departed from what she stated in her examination-in-chief; nor has she disowned the substratum of the prosecution case. There is no demonstrable transfer of loyalty from the prosecution to the defence,” the High Court noted. It noted that “a stray answer cannot be elevated into a wholesale abandonment of the prosecution case”.

The trial court judge, in the January 2026 order, had stated: “On examination and scanning of materials of prosecution and ocular evidence of PW-1 exhibits that PW-1 is being mother of deceased, not having hostility animus or her answers are not manifest antipathy towards to prosecution case. Therefore, I am of the opinion that question of granting permission to cross-examination prosecution’s own witness not necessary”.

There is yet another facet. It cannot be brushed aside, the High Court said, while pointing out that if, after cross-examination of PW-1 by the defence, an ambiguity, omission or apparent inconsistency had surfaced in the testimony of PW-1, the prosecution had the remedy of re-examination to explain matters arising out of such cross-examination.

Even so, the High Court noted that record indicate that the prosecution chose not to re-examine PW-1.

“Having allowed that statutory opportunity to pass, the prosecution cannot seek to achieve, through the extraordinary route of Section 154 of the Evidence Act, what could appropriately have been clarified in re-examination. Section 154 of the Evidence Act cannot become a procedural second innings merely because the first was not played to the satisfaction of the party calling the witness,” the High Court stated.