The evidentiary value of a hostile witness has long been a contentious issue in criminal jurisprudence. Courts often face the challenge of determining whether testimony given by such witnesses, who deviate from their earlier statements or show inconsistency, can still be relied upon. The Supreme Court of India, in its recent judgment in State of Kerala v. K.A. Abdul Rasheed (2026 INSC 365), has once again clarified this position, reiterating that the testimony of a hostile witness is not to be discarded in toto and may be relied upon to the extent it is found credible.
This ruling is significant as it reinforces a well-settled principle: the truth in a criminal trial is not determined by the label attached to a witness, but by the credibility of the evidence as a whole. The Court emphasised that even when a witness turns hostile, portions of their testimony that inspire confidence and are corroborated by other evidence can form the basis of a conviction.
Facts of the Case
The case arose out of a prosecution under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The accused, a Taluk Supply Officer (TSO), was alleged to have demanded a bribe of ₹500 from the complainant, an authorised ration dealer, for countersigning certain official records.
The prosecution’s case was that the accused repeatedly refused to countersign the required ‘Abstract’ documents maintained by the complainant. The complainant alleged that this refusal was linked to a demand for illegal gratification. Acting on this, a complaint was lodged with the vigilance department, and a trap was laid.
During the trap proceedings, the complainant handed over the marked currency note to the accused. The trap team subsequently recovered the marked note from the accused, and chemical tests confirmed contact with the tainted currency. The acceptance of the money by the accused was thus established.
However, during the trial, the complainant (PW1) made inconsistent statements and partially resiled from his earlier version, thereby being treated as a hostile witness. The trial court nevertheless convicted the accused, relying on the corroborated portions of the testimony and other evidence.
Issues Before the Court
The Supreme Court was called upon to determine:
- Whether the testimony of a hostile witness can be relied upon in criminal proceedings.
- Whether the prosecution had successfully proved the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.
- Whether the High Court was justified in acquitting the accused solely on account of inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony.
On appeal, the High Court acquitted the accused, primarily on the ground that the complainant’s inconsistent testimony failed to establish the essential ingredient of “demand” of bribe.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s acquittal, restoring the conviction recorded by the trial court.
The Court held that the High Court erred in discarding the complainant’s testimony entirely merely because he made inconsistent statements. It emphasised that the correct approach is to scrutinise the testimony carefully and rely upon those portions that are credible and corroborated by other evidence.
The Court found that:
- The acceptance of the bribe amount was clearly established and even admitted by the accused.
- The pre-trap and post-trap proceedings were duly proved through independent witnesses and the investigating officer.
- The complainant’s earlier statements, particularly those made before the vigilance authorities and corroborated by independent witnesses, established the demand for illegal gratification.
Accordingly, the Court concluded that the essential ingredients of the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act were satisfied.
Legal Position on Hostile Witnesses
A central aspect of the judgment is the Court’s reaffirmation of the legal principles governing hostile witnesses. The Court relied on earlier precedents, particularly Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration, to reiterate that the testimony of a hostile witness is not wholly inadmissible.
The Court observed:
“Even in a criminal prosecution… the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be treated as washed off the record altogether. The court may accept that part of the testimony which it finds to be creditworthy.”
This principle recognises the practical reality that witnesses may turn hostile due to pressure, fear, or inducement. Therefore, rejecting their testimony entirely would defeat the ends of justice.
Analysis of Evidence
1. Credibility of the Complainant’s Testimony
Although the complainant (PW1) made inconsistent statements during cross-examination, the Court noted that he had:
- Admitted filing the complaint before the vigilance authorities.
- Confirmed that the contents of the complaint were read over and accepted as correct.
- Acknowledged the presence of independent witnesses during the complaint and trap proceedings.
These aspects lent credibility to the prosecution’s case and demonstrated that the complainant’s testimony, despite inconsistencies, contained reliable elements.
2. Corroboration by Independent Witnesses
The testimony of PW2, an independent witness, and PW17, the trap officer, played a crucial role. They corroborated:
- The lodging of the complaint,
- The preparation of the trap,
- The recovery of the marked currency note.
The Court observed that such corroboration significantly strengthened the prosecution’s case and validated the credible portions of the complainant’s testimony.
3. Proof of Demand
The High Court had acquitted the accused on the ground that the demand was not proved. However, the Supreme Court held that demand can be inferred from the overall evidence, including:
- The contents of the complaint,
- Statements made before independent witnesses,
- Circumstantial evidence surrounding the transaction.
The Court found that the earlier demand had been established despite the complainant’s inconsistent deposition at trial.
4. Acceptance of Illegal Gratification
The Court emphasised that acceptance of the bribe was unequivocally proved. The recovery of the marked note and the chemical test results were strong incriminating circumstances.
Moreover, the accused’s explanation regarding the money was found to be false and inconsistent, further strengthening the prosecution’s case.
Distinction from Earlier Cases
The Court distinguished the present case from earlier decisions such as Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh, where the complainant had completely disowned the complaint.
In contrast, in the present case:
- The complaint was admitted,
- The trap proceedings were proved,
- The complainant’s testimony, though inconsistent, was not entirely unreliable.
Thus, the Court held that the factual matrix justified reliance on the credible portions of the testimony.
Role of Judicial Scrutiny
A key takeaway from the judgment is the emphasis on judicial scrutiny. The Court underscored that it is the duty of the trial court to:
- Examine the entire evidence carefully,
- Separate truth from falsehood,
- Accept only those portions that are reliable.
The Court cautioned against adopting a mechanical approach of discarding evidence merely because a witness turns hostile.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Kerala v. K.A. Abdul Rasheed (2026) is a significant reaffirmation of the evidentiary value of hostile witnesses in criminal trials. The Court has made it clear that the testimony of such witnesses is not to be discarded outright but must be carefully evaluated to identify credible portions.
By restoring the conviction, the Court has underscored that justice cannot be compromised merely due to inconsistencies in witness testimony, especially when other evidence corroborates the prosecution’s case. The judgment reinforces the principle that truth in a criminal trial emerges from a holistic assessment of evidence, not from rigid technicalities.
In essence, the ruling strikes a balance between safeguarding the rights of the accused and ensuring that unreliable or compromised witnesses do not undermine the administration of justice. It stands as a guiding precedent for courts dealing with hostile witnesses and reiterates that credibility, not consistency alone, is the cornerstone of evidentiary evaluation.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams