Credibility Of Witness Not Disqualified By Criminal Antecedents If Testimony Is Consistent, Coherent & Corroborative: Kerala High Court

The Court by upholding the conviction, reinforced that the twin ingredients of "demand and acceptance" under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, 1988, were sufficiently proved through the consistent deposition of the complainant and the recovery of phenolphthalein-marked currency.

Justice A. Badharudeen while dismissing an appeal filed by a Section Forest Officer convicted of bribery, held that the character of the complainant does not inherently invalidate a "red-handed" trap recovery. “It is true that as per Section 140 of the Evidence Act as well as under Section 145 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the witnesses to character may be cross examined and re-examined, thereby ensuring that their testimony is properly scrutinised and tested for credibility. The testimony of such a witness could not be rejected automatically or casually. But the Court has to scrutinise the evidence to find as to whether the evidence is (1) consistent and coherent (2) the evidence would get support of other corroborative evidence (3) the evidence is found to be truthful and reliable even on meticulous cross examination (4) the evidence doesn’t have any material contradictions and (5) the evidence is either biased or fradulent….”.

“…the evidence of a witness with criminal antecedents or involvement in criminal cases should not be used merely to maliciously discredit a witness, unless the same found to be unreliable for non-satisfaction of the ingredients, illustrated above”, the Bench noted.

Advocate Nireesh Mathew appeared for the appellant and Rekha S., Senior Public Prosecutor appeared for the respondent.

Pertinently, the Court had to consider as to whether the evidence of a witness, who has criminal antecedents or involvement in criminal cases, is to be treated as wholly unreliable even the evidence given by the witness not at all shaken during cross examination

For the facts, the appellant, Muheshkumar K., was serving as a Section Forest Officer at Mukkudam when he allegedly demanded ₹20,000 from a timber businessman (PW1) to permit the transport of wood.

The prosecution alleged that the accused accepted ₹10,000 on December 11, 2012, and subsequently demanded more. A trap was laid by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) on December 15, 2012, during which the accused was caught accepting ₹5,000 in marked notes.

The Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Muvattupuzha, convicted the accused on December 4, 2020, under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act. He was sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹25,000 for each offence. The accused subsequently challenged this verdict before the High Court.

Now, the Court rejected the defense contention that the complainant (PW1) was unreliable due to his involvement in multiple criminal cases. The Bench noted that PW1’s testimony regarding the demand and acceptance was "candid" and had not been shaken during cross-examination.

“Here PW1 is a person engaged in timber business and he had involvement in certain crimes, as deposed by him during cross examination and according to PW1, in all these cases he had been acquitted. Hence PW1 had given candid evidence to prove the prosecution case and his evidence in this regard failed to be shaken in any manner to make the same as not wholly reliable. Thus on re-appreciation of the evidence of PW1 this Court could found the same as wholly reliable. Therefore, his criminal antecedents would not disqualify his evidence as unbelievable in the facts of the case as already discussed. Therefore, this challenge is found to be unsustainable...”, the Bench noted.

The Court further observed that the defense's claim, that the money was a donation for a temple festival, was a "ruse" to save a colleague, noting that government servants are legally barred from making such collections from the public. The successful phenolphthalein test and the recovery of marked currency from the accused's purse provided the necessary corroboration to the complainant's statement.

Accordingly, the Court confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Court, dismissing the appeal. The order suspending the sentence was cancelled, and the accused was directed to surrender before the Special Court to undergo his term of imprisonment.

Cause Title: Muheshkumar K. v. State of Kerala [Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:29710]

Appearances:

Appellant: Nireesh Mathew, Advocate.

Respondent: Rajesh A., Special Public Prosecutor and Rekha S., Senior Public Prosecutor.

Click here to read/download the Judgment