The Supreme Court recently clarified that a Court Witness — someone summoned directly by the court under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act — cannot be contradicted by the prosecution using their earlier statements made to the police. However, the court itself can question the witness on such previous statements.
A bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra explained:
“Court witnesses can be cross-examined by either side, but only with the court’s permission. This cross-examination must be limited to what the witness said while answering the court’s questions. Their earlier statements made to police under Section 161 CrPC cannot be used by the prosecution to contradict them.”
The bench referred to previous judgments, including Mahabir Mandal v. State of Bihar (1972) and Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat (2019), to support this view. It emphasized that the proviso to Section 162(1) of CrPC permits contradiction using earlier police statements only in the case of prosecution witnesses — not court witnesses.
However, the Court clarified:
“The court itself is not bound by these limitations. Under Section 165 of the Evidence Act, it can ask any question and even contradict a court witness using their earlier police statements. These special powers are not affected by Section 162 of CrPC.”
Read Also:- Supreme Court: Hostile Witness Testimony Can't Be Ignored Completely; Court Must Examine What Is Reliable
The bench made these observations while confirming the conviction of eleven individuals in the Kannagi-Murugesan honour killing case from Tamil Nadu.
In this case, a Dalit man, Murugesan, and his Vanniyar wife, Kannagi, were secretly married in May 2003. Her family opposed the inter-caste marriage. On July 7, 2003, the couple was caught and forced to consume poison by Kannagi’s father and brother. Their bodies were then burned.
“Murugesan was a chemical engineering graduate, while Kannagi held a commerce degree. Their tragic murder was carried out by her own family.”
The trial court had sentenced Kannagi’s brother Marudupandian to death in 2021 and gave life sentences to 12 others. In 2022, the Madras High Court commuted Marudupandian’s sentence to life and upheld the life terms of ten others.
During the trial, PW-49, Murugesan’s stepmother, was not listed as a witness in the CBI’s chargesheet. Later, she was brought in as an additional witness under Section 311 CrPC. This decision was challenged, with claims that she should have been summoned as a court witness, fearing she might become hostile and help the accused.
The Supreme Court highlighted the difference:
“An additional witness can be summoned at any time under Section 311 CrPC. But a court witness, though called under the same section, is subject to stricter rules, and cross-examination is only allowed through the court’s discretion.”
Read Also:- Supreme Court Confirms Convictions in Kannagi-Murugesan Honour Killing Case from Tamil Nadu
The Court upheld the convictions and also dismissed appeals by two policemen convicted for fabricating evidence. It further ordered a compensation of ₹5 lakh to be given jointly to Murugesan’s father and stepmother.
Other report about the judgment can be read here
Case Title: KP Tamilmaran vs State, SLP(Crl) No. 1522/2023
Counsel Appeared: Senior Advocates Siddharth Agarwal and Gopal Sankaranarayanan for the appellants, ASG Vikramjit Banerjee for the CBI, and Advocate Rahul Shyam Bhandari for the victim’s parents.
