Renukaswamy murder: Karnataka HC rejects prosecution plea to cross-examine Renukaswamy's mother

The Karnataka High Court has rejected the State's plea seeking permission to cross-examine the mother of murder victim Renukaswamy, upholding the trial court's refusal to allow the prosecution to cross-examine its own witness in the matter [State of Karnataka Vs Pavitra Gowda & others].

Justice M Nagaprasanna added that a witness does not become hostile merely because every answer she gives does not suit the party that summoned her.

"Section 154 (which gives the trial court discretionary powers to permit parties to question their own witness in a manner similar to cross-examination) 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 Court said.

The Court added that permitting the cross-examination of a party's own witness whenever an answer becomes inconvenient would effectively allow a party to repair perceived deficiencies in its examination-in-chief.

“If every inconvenient answer, minor deviation or stray omission were sufficient to open the doors of Section 154 of the Evidence Act, examination-in-chief would cease to retain its character,” the Court said.

The Court also pointed out that the prosecution had a statutory remedy to re-examine the witness, although this remedy was not availed on time in this case.

“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,” the Court held.

The Court, therefore, upheld the trial court's refusal to grant the prosecution permission to cross-examine Renukaswamy's mother in the murder trial ongoing against actors Darshan, Pavitra Gowda and others.

33-year-old Renukaswamy's dead body was found on June 9, 2024. He is said to have been attacked and beaten to death after he allegedly sent lewd messages to actor Darshan's partner, Pavithra Gowda.

Darshan allegedly called upon his fans to accost Renukaswamy for making derogatory comments against Gowda on social media.

Darshan and his associates then allegedly beat Renukaswamy with sticks, pipes, and a belt, causing fatal head and chest injuries, leading to his death. The prosecution also claims that Darshan and Pavithra were in constant contact during the crime.

One of the witnesses called by the prosecution during the murder trial to support its allegations against Darshan and others accused was Renukaswamy's mother, Rathnaprabha.

However, after she allegedly made certain contradicatory statements during the examination-in-chief, the prosecution wished to declare her a hostile witness and sought permission to cross-examine her under Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act.

The trial court refused to grant such permission, prompting the State to move the High Court for relief.

The accused, including actor Darshan, opposed the State's plea. They submitted that Rathnaprabha had substantially supported the prosecution's case. Certain vague or stray statements cannot be treated as hostility to permit the prosecution to cross-examine its own witness, they argued.

In its August 18 judgment, the Court ruled that trivial inconsistencies, stray answers or insignificant omissions in Rathnaprabha's witness account cannot be magnified into hostility.

“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... 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 Court observed.

The Court held that the statements relied upon by the prosecution to term Rathnaprabha a hostile witness were, at best, stray answers made at an unguarded moment. The Court underscored that a witness cannot be routinely declared hostile for such reasons.

“Inconvenience is not hostility; discrepancy is not disloyalty; and an isolated departure is not necessarily an abandonment of the case," the Court added.

The Court also clarified that Indian law does not require a formal declaration that a witness is 'hostile' before Section 154 of the Evidence Act can be invoked. However, the absence of such a requirement does not give a party an unrestricted right to cross-examine its own witness, it said.

In this case, the Court found no circumstance warranting the exercise of discretion under Section 154. It, therefore, dismissed the State's plea.

Special Public Prosecutor P Prasanna Kumar represented the State.

Senior counsel Hasmath Pasha and advocates Kariappa NA, Sudhanva DS, and Ranganath Reddy appeared for actor Darshan and other accused.

[Read Order]