The State of Kerala v. K.A. Abdul Rasheed, 2026
It strengthened the doctrine that courts must perform selective appreciation of evidence, extracting credible parts even from inconsistent statements.
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
15 April 2026
Judges
Justice Sanjay Kumar & Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Facts of the Case
-
The accused, a Taluk Supply Officer (TSO), was alleged to have demanded a bribe of ₹500 for countersigning an official document.
-
The complainant lodged a written complaint with the Vigilance Department.
-
A trap operation was conducted using marked currency notes in the presence of independent witnesses.
-
The accused was allegedly caught accepting the bribe amount during the trap proceedings.
-
During trial, the complainant (PW1 turned hostile) and gave inconsistent statements.
-
The High Court acquitted the accused, relying heavily on the complainant’s hostility and finding the “demand” not proved.
-
The State appealed to the Supreme Court against the acquittal.
Issues
-
Whether the entire testimony of a hostile witness must be discarded in corruption cases?
-
Whether courts can rely on the creditworthy portion of testimony given by a hostile witness to prove demand and acceptance of bribe?
-
Whether the High Court was correct in acquitting the accused solely on the basis of hostility of the complainant?
Held
-
Appeal allowed.
-
High Court judgment of acquittal set aside.
-
Conviction by trial court restored.
-
Courts must consider reliable portions of hostile witness testimony rather than discarding it entirely.
Analysis
-
The Court reaffirmed the settled principle that hostile witness testimony is not wholly inadmissible.
-
It strengthened the doctrine that courts must perform selective appreciation of evidence, extracting credible parts even from inconsistent statements.
-
The judgment clarifies the evidentiary standard in corruption cases involving trap proceedings, where hostility of complainant is common.
-
It emphasizes that demand and acceptance of bribe can be proved through a combination of partial testimony, independent witnesses, and circumstantial evidence.
-
The ruling criticizes mechanical reliance on hostility to grant acquittal, reinforcing judicial duty to evaluate entire evidentiary record holistically.
-
It aligns with Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration, reinforcing long-standing evidence law principles.