Renukaswamy Murder Trial| “Inconvenience Is Not Hostility”: Karnataka High Court Rejects State’s Request To Cross-Examine Deceased’s Mother
In the matter involving Kannada actor, Darshan, the Court warned against misuse of the Evidence Act provision to repair trial gaps.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna, Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a criminal petition filed by the State seeking permission to cross-examine its own witness, the mother of the deceased Renukaswamy, in the high-profile murder trial involving Kannada actor Darshan. The Bench affirmed the Sessions Court’s order, holding that an inconvenient answer or minor discrepancy given in cross-examination does not amount to hostility or abandonment of the prosecution case.
The Court emphasized that the extraordinary discretion under Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 cannot be invoked routinely to repair perceived deficiencies in examination-in-chief, particularly when the prosecution chose not to exercise its statutory right of re-examination.
A Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed, “A witness does not become hostile merely because every syllable uttered by the said witness does not march to the drumbeat of the party who summoned him. Nor does Section 154 of the Evidence Act confer upon a party an automatic right to cross-examine its own witness whenever an answer turns inconvenient. Inconvenience is not hostility; discrepancy is not disloyalty; and an isolated departure is not necessarily an abandonment of the case. Something more must be demonstrated before the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 154 of the Evidence Act can be invoked”.
P. Prasanna Kumar, Special Public Prosecutor appeared for the petitioner and Senior Advocate Hashmath Pasha appeared for the respondent.
The matter arises for offences under Sections 302 (murder) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the IPC following the discovery of a male body on June 9, 2024. Investigation brought multiple accused into the fold, including Kannada actor Darshan (Accused No. 2) and Pavitra Gowda (Accused No. 1), alleging a larger conspiracy. The case is currently pending trial before the LVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
During trial, the prosecution examined the mother of the deceased (CW-8) as PW-1. During cross-examination by the defence, PW-1 made statements regarding: Police identifying the deceased’s body through an ID card (which the prosecution claimed was not seized). Call detail records (CDR) and specific mobile numbers associated with her son, and observations regarding weapons and wounds shown at the time of the inquest.
Based on these statements, the Special Public Prosecutor made an oral request before the trial court under Section 154 of the Evidence Act to cross-examine PW-1. On January 17, 2026, the trial court rejected the application, prompting the State to approach the High Court under Section 482 CrPC.
The Court, now, after considering the relevant provisions and the circumstances, reiterated that while Section 154 confers wide judicial discretion, it must be exercised on discernible material. Granting permission for minor omissions or unguarded answers would allow parties to routinely treat examination-in-chief as a preliminary stage and use cross-examination to fill gaps, thereby letting the exception "devour the rule".
“To hold otherwise would produce consequences plainly destructive of the statutory scheme. 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. A party could summon its witness, wait for an answer not entirely to its liking and then seek permission to put leading questions under the guise of cross-examination. Section 154 of the Evidence Act would then cease to be an exceptional procedural safeguard and become a convenient device to repair perceived deficiencies in examination-in-chief. The exception would devour the rule”, the Bench said.
“It is equally true that the law does not insist upon the ritualistic declaration of a witness as “hostile” before permission under Section 154 of the Evidence Act can be granted. The nomenclature is not decisive; the circumstances are. But the absence of any statutory requirement of a formal declaration cannot be converted into an unrestricted licence to cross-examine one's own witness. The discretion remains hedged by judicial discipline. The Court must find circumstances warranting such departure from the ordinary mode of examination, and those circumstances must emerge from the conduct and testimony of the witness viewed as a whole”, it noted further.
The Court highlighted that if ambiguities or inconsistencies arose during cross-examination by the defence, the prosecution had the statutory remedy of re-examination to clarify those points. Having allowed that opportunity to pass, the prosecution could not use Section 154 as a procedural "second innings".
Cause Title: State of Karnataka v. Pavitra Gowda & Ors. Criminal Petition No. 6820 of 2026
Appearances:
Petitioner: P. Prasanna Kumar, Special Public Prosecutor
Respondents: Hashmath Pasha, Senior Advocate, Kariappa N.A., Sudhanva D.S., Ranganath Reddy, Advocates.