Deposition Of Hostile Witness Acceptable To Creditworthy Extent : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (April 15) held that courts cannot discard the testimony of a hostile witness in its entirety and must instead identify and rely on the “creditworthy” portions of such evidence.

“…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.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran while setting aside an acquittal in a corruption case, holding that the mere fact that the complainant turned hostile cannot justify acquittal when the demand and acceptance of a bribe are otherwise proved.

The case arose from allegations that Respondent, a Taluk Supply Officer (TSO), had demanded a bribe of ₹500 from the complainant for performing an official act, countersigning an abstract related to his work.

Unwilling to pay the bribe, the complainant approached the Vigilance Department and lodged a written complaint. A trap was arranged, during which the complainant carried marked currency notes; independent witnesses were present during pre-trap and post-trap proceedings, and the accused allegedly accepted the bribe amount.

Following the trap, proceedings were conducted, and evidence was collected, including the complaint and statements recorded in the presence of independent witnesses.

During the trial, the complainant (PW1) turned hostile and gave inconsistent answers. Relying heavily on this hostility, the High Court acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the essential ingredient of “demand” of a bribe.

Aggrieved by the High Court's decision, the State moved to the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Chandran observed that the High Court erred in setting aside the conviction, merely upon relying on the later hostility of the complainant, while ignoring that part of the complainant's testimony where it accepted the factum of the demand for a bribe by the Respondent.

“So much of the evidence of PW1 is creditworthy and despite PW1 having accepted every suggestion made by the defense in the cross-examination, the credible portion cannot be eschewed.”, the court observed.

The Court said that it is the Court's responsibility to find out the creditworthy part out of inconsistent statements made by the witness.

“The evidence of PW1 was pock marked with inconsistent versions, but it is for the court to scrutinize the same and find out whether there is anything creditworthy enabling proof of the allegation raised, which was done by the trial court.”, the court said.

The Court also rejected the High Court's reliance on Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi) to acquit the respondent merely because the demand of bribe was disputed. It held that such reliance was misplaced, noting that even in Neeraj Dutta, the Court had referred to Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration (1976) 1 SCC 727, which requires courts to examine the entire testimony of a witness and extract those portions that are found to be credible.

“If the Judge finds that in the process, the credit of the witness has not been completely shaken, he may, after reading and considering the evidence of the witness, as a whole, with due caution and care, accept, in the light of the other evidence on the record, that part of his testimony which he finds to be creditworthy and act upon it.”, the court observed in Sat Paul (supra).

“In fact, the High Court has noticed various portions in the deposition of PW1 where he admits the demand, especially certain portions of Ext. P1. The demeanor of the witness in the box, as discernible from the evidence recorded, especially his hesitance to make an answer immediately on a question being asked was also noticed by the High Court. The evidence of PW2, it was observed by the High Court, was not impeached by a shred in the cross-examination by the defense. Despite these observations, the High Court chose to find no demand having been established; according to us erroneously. The evidence of PW1 was pock marked with inconsistent versions, but it is for the court to scrutinize the same and find out whether there is anything creditworthy enabling proof of the allegation raised, which was done by the trial court.”, the court held.

In terms of the aforementioned, the appeal was allowed, and the trial court's decision of conviction was restored.

Cause Title: The State of Kerala Versus K.A. Abdul Rasheed

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 374

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Raghenth Basant, Sr. Adv. Mr. Harshad V. Hameed, AOR Mr. Dileep Poolakkot, Adv. Mrs. Ashly Harshad, Adv. Mr. Mahabir Singh, Adv. Mr. Muhammed Siddick, Adv. Ms. Hima Bhardwaj, Adv. Ms. Kaushitaki Sharma, Adv. Dr. Arunender Thakur, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. P.B Suresh Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pranav Krishna, AOR Mr. Akhil Suresh, Adv. Mr. Pattathil Pranav Menon, Adv