Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is against the order dated 21.10.2013 by which the learned trial Court has declared DW -1 Sohan Lal as a hostile witness. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned trial Court has erred in declaring the said witness as hostile without applying its mind and recording its satisfaction that the statement of the witness exhibits an element of hostility. In this regard, he has relied upon the decisions of the Madras High Court in S. Murugesan and others v. S. Pethaperumal and others, : A.I.R. 1999 Madras 76 and of the Supreme Court in Gura Singh v. The State of Rajasthan, : 2001 A.I.R. S.C. 330 : (2001)2 S.C.C. 205.
(2.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the Court has the jurisdiction to declare the witness hostile in view of Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972 (for short 'the Act'). In this regard he has relied upon a judgment of Supreme Court rendered in Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat, : 1964 A.I.R. (S.C.) 1563. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record with their able assistance. Before I advert to the facts of the case, it would be relevant to refer to Section 154 of the Act, which reads as under: - "154. Question by party to his own witness: - The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross -examination by the adverse party."
(3.) ACCORDING to the aforesaid provision, it is the discretionary power of the Court to permit the person, who calls a witness, to put any question to him which might be put in cross -examination by the adverse party. However, the questions involved in the present case are (i) whether the Court does or does not have the jurisdiction to declare the witness hostile? and (ii) under what circumstances a witness can be declared hostile?;