Question by party to his own witness
The Court may, in its discretion, permit the calling party to ask its own witness questions available in cross-examination. A formal declaration of hostility is not a statutory precondition. Permission does not erase the witness’s evidence; credible portions may still be relied on.
How to read Section 157
If your own witness turns against you, the court may let you cross-examine him — and you can still rely on whatever part of his evidence helps you.
The court may, in its discretion, permit the party who calls a witness to put questions of the kind allowed in cross-examination.
The full armoury of cross — leading questions, questions to shake credit, confronting with prior statements — against his own witness.
The party is not disentitled to rely on any part of that witness’s evidence.
The bare Act
The section in its own words — the discretion, and a saving.
Permission to cross-examine. (1) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.
Evidence still usable. (2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.
In short: The statutory gateway is the Court’s permission, exercised judicially in the circumstances. The terminology “hostile witness” is commonly used, but section 157 does not make a formal declaration a precondition. An unfavourable answer alone does not establish dishonesty, and permission is not automatic on request. Subsection (2) preserves the calling party’s ability to rely on the witness’s evidence, subject to the Court’s assessment of credibility.
Correspondence: IEA section 154. Keep the decision to permit questions separate from the later assessment of the answers.
Glossary
The party who produced and examined-in-chief the witness.
Questions available to an adverse party, subject to the usual statutory limits. Other rules, including section 146 on leading questions, must also be read.
The Court decides judicially whether permission is warranted; a formal hostility declaration is not required by the section.
A commonly used label. Neither an unexpected answer nor permission under section 157 automatically establishes that the testimony is false.
Sub-§ (2): the party may still use the favourable parts of the evidence.
The whole testimony — parts of which may still be relied on.
The picture
Court permission is one decision; the credibility and use of the resulting evidence are another.
The section, part by part
Tap a part — the picture-story tells it first; the word-by-word text and example follow.
hostile witnessThe court may let you cross-examine the witness you called
still countsA hostile witness’s evidence is not thrown away
Connected provisions
Answers on credit are final
The finality rule on collateral credit — § 157 lets a party turn cross-examination on his own witness.
Leading questions
Leading is normally barred in chief — permission under § 157 unlocks it for a hostile witness.
Impeaching credit of witness
Three ways to impeach credit — unworthy-of-credit testimony, proof of bribery, or former inconsistent statements.
IEA 1872, § 154
The corresponding former provision conferred the Court’s discretion and preserved reliance on the witness’s evidence.
Sources and reading note
Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan (6 December 2000), pages 4–6, applying Sat Paul, explains the distinction between permission and a formal hostility declaration. Compare BSA section 157.
Explanatory corrections reviewed on 24 September 2026. Statutory quotation and commentary are kept separate.