Karnataka HC says no to prosecution to cross-examine victim’s mother

Key points

• BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court dismissed the petition filed by the state government challenging the order passed by the sessions…
• Section 154 cannot become a procedural second innings merely because the first was not played to the satisfaction of the…
• But it was rejected by the sessions court on the ground that prosecution cannot be permitted to cross-examine the witness…
• Lastly, about the deposition produced about the weapon and wound on her son’s body.

BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court dismissed the petition filed by the state government challenging the order passed by the sessions court rejecting the permission to the prosecution to cross-examine its own witness. This person is the mother of the deceased in the Renukaswamy murder case involving actor Darshan and 16 other accused.

“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”, said the court while upholding the order passed by the sessions court.

Justice M Nagaprasanna pronounced the order rejecting the petition filed by the state challenging the order dated January 17, 2026, passed by the LVI Additional Civil and Sessions Court rejecting the request produced by the prosecution to permit cross-examination of Renukaswamy’s mother under Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act.

The oral request was made by the special public prosecutor (SPP) P Prasanna Kumar before the sessions court after she stated to have deposed contrary to the material available on record and to the aspects deposed in the examination-in-chief. But it was rejected by the sessions court on the ground that prosecution cannot be permitted to cross-examine the witness without turning hostile.

What happened

SPP contended that the mother of the deceased deposed during the cross-examination that the police had identified the body of her son based upon his ID card, but there was no ID. Also, the tower location or the call detail records indicated that she contacted her son with a mobile phone number. It she denies.

Lastly, about the deposition produced about the weapon and wound on her son’s body. Section 154 of the Evidence Act permits a party to question his own witness, he argued.

Countering it, senior advocate Hasmath Pasha, appearing for Darshan and the other two accused, and advocate Ranganath Reddy, appearing for a few other accused, contended in unison that the mother has completely supported the case of the prosecution and certain vague statements here and there. It will not prejudice the case of the prosecution, are projected to be a ground for cross-examination. Law does not permit cross-examination of a witness without turning the witness hostile, except in exceptional circumstances as obtained under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, they argued.

Citing the verdicts of the apex court, the high court said that Section 154 provides discretion to the sessions court to exercise its power, but it is not a license for its mechanical exercise, and therefore, the exception cannot be permitted to casually swallow the rule of law. Section 154 cannot become a procedural second innings merely because the first was not played to the satisfaction of the party calling the witness, the court went on.