The Supreme Court of India has clarified that testimony from a hostile witness cannot be thrown out wholesale. Courts, it said, must sift through such evidence carefully and rely on parts that still carry credibility, even if the witness retracts or contradicts earlier statements.
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran set aside an acquittal in a corruption case, underscoring that the mere fact that a complainant turns hostile does not automatically dismantle the prosecution’s case. If the demand and acceptance of a bribe are otherwise supported, courts must examine the trustworthy segments of the testimony.
The case revolved around allegations that a Taluk Supply Officer sought ₹500 from a complainant to countersign an official document. The complainant approached vigilance authorities instead of paying. A trap was arranged, marked currency notes were handed over, and independent witnesses observed both pre-trap and post-trap proceedings. The officer allegedly accepted the bribe during the operation.
However, during trial, the complainant shifted stance and delivered inconsistent responses. The High Court relied heavily on this hostility and acquitted the accused, concluding that the prosecution failed to establish the crucial element of “demand.”
The State challenged this ruling before the apex court. The Bench found fault with the High Court’s approach, noting that parts of the complainant’s testimony still acknowledged the demand for a bribe. Those portions, the Court held, could not be ignored simply because the witness later adopted contradictory positions.
The judges emphasized that it is the court’s duty to separate the unreliable from the reliable. Even where statements are riddled with inconsistencies, the credible fragments—when supported by other evidence—remain admissible and actionable.
The Court also found the High Court’s reliance on Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi) misplaced. It pointed out that the earlier ruling itself referred to Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration, which directs courts to examine a witness’s testimony in totality and accept the trustworthy portions with caution.
Observing that independent witness testimony remained intact and that certain admissions of demand were evident, the Bench concluded that the acquittal was erroneous. The trial court’s conviction was therefore restored, and the appeal allowed.
