The Supreme Court of India has held that conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act can be sustained even when the complainant turns hostile, provided that credible portions of evidence establish the essential ingredients of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.
The bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran has found that the complainant had affirmed the contents of his initial complaint before vigilance authorities in the presence of independent witnesses. The trap proceedings and recovery of tainted money were duly proved and corroborated by independent witnesses and the investigating officer. The accused had admitted acceptance of money, but offered inconsistent and unreliable explanations. The complainant’s inconsistent statements during trial did not completely erode the credibility of earlier admissions regarding demand.
The judgment came in the case of State of Kerala vs. K.A. Abdul Rasheed, where the Court set aside the acquittal granted by the High Court and restored the conviction imposed by the trial court.
The prosecution alleged that the accused, a Taluk Supply Officer, had demanded a bribe of ₹500 from an Authorized Ration Dealer for countersigning official records (“Abstract”). A trap was laid by the vigilance department, during which the marked currency note was recovered from the accused.
The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, sentencing him to two years’ imprisonment. However, the High Court acquitted the accused on the ground that the complainant’s testimony was inconsistent and failed to conclusively establish the demand, which is a sine qua non for conviction under the Act.
The central issue before the Court was whether conviction could be sustained when the complainant turned partially hostile, and direct evidence of demand at the time of trap was weak or inconsistent.
The Supreme Court undertook a detailed examination of the evidentiary record and reiterated that proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification remains essential to establish offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
However, the Court clarified that evidence of a hostile witness is not to be discarded in toto. Courts are entitled to rely on credible portions of such testimony if corroborated by other evidence. Demand can be inferred from surrounding circumstances, including prior complaints and corroborative testimony.
Relying on the Constitution Bench ruling in Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Court emphasized that demand and acceptance must be proved, but such proof need not always be through unimpeachable direct testimony alone.
The Court observed that the earlier demand stood established from the creditworthy portion of testimony, even though the witness attempted to dilute the case during cross-examination.
The judgment reiterates an important evidentiary principle: Testimony of a hostile witness can still be relied upon to the extent it supports the prosecution case, if corroborated by other evidence.
The Court stressed that a mechanical rejection of such evidence would defeat the administration of justice, especially in corruption cases where witnesses often retract under pressure.
Another crucial aspect noted by the Court was that the accused’s false and inconsistent explanations regarding possession of the tainted money constituted an additional incriminating circumstance.
Allowing the appeal filed by the State, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s acquittal, and restored the trial court’s conviction and sentence, holding that the statutory minimum punishment did not warrant interference.
Case Details
Case Title: The State of Kerala Versus K.A. Abdul Rasheed
Citation: JURISHOUR-786-SC-2026
Case No.: Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1808 of 2026
Date: 15/04/2026
