Why Supreme Court restored Kerala officer’s bribery conviction despite hostile witness

Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran held that testimony of a hostile witness is not to be discarded in totality.

“As a matter of prudence, every court considering the deposition of a hostile witness has to look at the extent of the deposition, which is creditworthy to provide proof, of the case set up,” the Supreme Court said on April 15, setting aside the Kerala High Court’s acquittal, and reinstated the trial court’s sentence of two years’ imprisonment.

Key issue: Can hostile witnesses be relied upon?

A central question before the Supreme Court was whether the prosecution’s case collapsed because the complainant (PW1) made inconsistent statements and appeared to support the defence during cross-examination. The court answered in the negative.

Relying on settled law, the bench held that the testimony of a hostile witness is not to be discarded in totality. Instead, courts must examine whether parts of the evidence remain credible and are supported by other material on record.

“It is for the Judge… to accept… that part of his testimony which he finds to be creditworthy,” the court observed, citing precedent.

Rs 500 demand, trap in 2009

The case arose from allegations that K A Abdul Rasheed, then a taluk supply officer, demanded a Rs 500 bribe from an authorised ration dealer to countersign official records known as the ‘Abstract’.

According to the prosecution, the officer refused to countersign the document on multiple occasions in July 2009, prompting the complainant to approach the vigilance department. A trap was laid, during which the complainant handed over a marked Rs 500 note to the accused inside his office.

The note was later recovered from the accused’s shirt pocket, and chemical tests confirmed contact with the tainted currency. The Supreme Court noted that the acceptance of the bribe stood unequivocally proved and was even admitted by the accused.

Trial court convicts, HC acquits

The trial court convicted the accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act and imposed a two-year sentence. However, the Kerala High Court acquitted him, pointing to inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony and the absence of direct evidence proving demand at the time of the trap. It also noted that one of the independent witnesses present during the transaction was not examined.

The Supreme Court found that crucial aspects of the complainant’s version were corroborated. An independent witness (PW2), who was present during pre-trap proceedings and confirmed that the complainant narrated the demand before vigilance officers.

The trap officer (PW17) recorded the complaint and supervised the operation. Although one witness who accompanied the complainant during the actual handing over of money was not examined, the court held that this did not fatally weaken the prosecution case.

Importantly, the complainant had affirmed his original complaint before vigilance officers, including the allegation that Rs 500 was demanded on two occasions in July 2009.

Demand established

The Supreme Court acknowledged that the complainant’s testimony was “pock marked with inconsistent versions” and that he appeared to support the defence during cross-examination.

However, it held that his confirmation of the complaint and earlier statements, the corroboration by independent witnesses, and the proven recovery of tainted money collectively established the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond a reasonable doubt.

The apex court concluded that the high court erred in discarding these material aspects and in holding that the demand was not proved. The accused offered conflicting explanations for possessing the money, including claims that it was repayment of a loan or meant for a third party.

Rejecting these explanations, the Supreme Court said such inconsistencies further weakened the defence and added to the incriminating circumstances.

Conviction, sentence restored

Allowing the state’s appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the high court’s acquittal and restored the trial court’s conviction and two-year sentence. Noting that the punishment imposed was the statutory minimum, the Supreme Court declined to reduce it.