Contradictions Must Be Proved As Per Procedure Prescribed Under Indian Evidence Act, Otherwise Not Admissible: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court emphasized that Contradictions have to be proved in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA), otherwise it would have no evidentiary value and would not be admissible.

The Court was hearing a Criminal Appeal filed by the accused, challenging his conviction by the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).

A Single Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen explained, “A contradiction is an art of the cross-examiner and the method to prove it is a science. Any contradiction if proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, 1872 can impeach the credibility of the witness and can help in rejecting the evidence of the prosecution in criminal trials and of the other side in civil trials. Contradictions have to be proved in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Evidence Act, 1872 otherwise it would have no evidentiary value and would not be admissible.”

The Bench added that a witness can be contradicted with his previous statements either made by him in writing or reduced into writing by someone and in criminal trials, statements recorded by the Police during the course of any investigation cannot be used for any purpose during the trial except to contradict the witness as provided under Section 145(1) of the IEA.

Senior Advocate B. Raman Pillai appeared for the Appellant/Accused, while Special Public Prosecutor Rajesh A. appeared for the Respondent/State.

Factual Background

As per the prosecution case, the Appellant-accused committed offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. It was alleged that the accused while working as Village Officer, Chittar-Seethathodu Village, demanded and accepted Rs. 250/- from a person in 2005 and again demanded and accepted Rs. 2,000/- in the same year for the purpose of effecting mutation in respect of 1.33 acres of land owned and possessed by him.

The Special Court proceeded with trial on completing the pre-trial formalities. The Special Court considered the evidence tendered by the prosecution as well as the defence and finally found that the accused had committed the offences punishable under the said provisions. The accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of two years along with a fine of Rs. 20,000/-. This was under challenge before the High Court.

Court’s Observations

The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, observed, “In criminal law, a contradiction is an inconsistency between the statements of witnesses to the police and their testimonies in court, where the witness says something that is opposite to or very different from or contrary to what they said in their previous statements. To prove a contradiction, the cross-examining lawyer must confront the witness with the specific, inconsistent parts of the previous statement, which can be done either with the witness's admission or, if denied, by the examining police officer testifying to the contents of the statement.”

What is a contradiction?

The Court noted that a contradiction occurs when a witness makes a statement in Court that is inconsistent with or contrary to his prior/previous statement recorded during police investigation.

“An omission means when a witness fails to mention a fact in his previous statement he later deposes the same in court. An omission can become a contradiction if it is a significant and relevant fact that was left out or omitted”, it said.

The Court enunciated that if the witness cannot remember, he must be reminded of the same by taking his attention to his previous statement and then the fate of the contradiction is based on his admission or denial.

“Proving a contradiction can cast doubt on the witness's veracity and impact how the court weighs their testimony. … The statements recorded under Section 161(3) of the Code are not substantive piece of evidence and the Court cannot suo motu make use of such statements in case if the testimony of the witness made during the trial is not consistent with the statement made before the police during the course of investigation. The object of Section 162 of the Code is to protect the accused against overzealous police officers and untruthful witness”, it said.

The Court further noted that an omission may amount to contradiction when what is stated in deposition becomes irreconcilable with what is omitted and impliedly negatives its existence.

“Therefore, whenever there is an inherent repugnancy between the testimony and the statement before the Police, then even an omission can become a contradiction and every such contradiction by way of omission is of much significance”, it added.

The Court remarked that it is not expected from a witness to share about all minute niceties about the place of occurrence by keeping the same in the memory after 6 years and the same, in fact, is humane impossibility.

“Therefore, minor discrepancies in the evidence, that too, by passage of time by itself, are quite insufficient to disbelieve the prosecution case where the witnesses were consistent in their versions with regard to the specific allegation of the prosecution. Therefore, this challenge also would not succeed”, it also said.

Conclusion

Coming back to the facts of the case, the Court observed that the legal position is not in dispute though merely because an omission at the instance of the Investigating Officer to make an effort to verify the factum of demand of bribe before initiating trap proceedings the same by itself would not become fatal to the prosecution when the prosecution evidence adduced would categorically establish the offences by proving the ingredients of Section 7 regarding the demand as well as acceptance of the bribe by the accused.

“Having re-appraised the evidence on the basis of the challenge raised by the accused and for the reasons discussed herein, it could only be held that the prosecution succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, as rightly held by the Special Court. The contra contentions raised are found to be untenable for the reasons herein above extracted. Thus the conviction is confirmed”, it held.

In consideration of the fact that the Appellant had some diseases, the Court decided to show some leniency with regard to the sentence imposed on him. It, therefore, modified the sentence.

“The conviction imposed by the Special Court is confirmed, but the sentence stands modified … The appellant/accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/ (Rupees Twenty thousand only) for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court partly allowed the Appeal, confirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence.

Cause Title- P.V. Mathew v. State (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:80023)

Appearance:

Appellant: Senior Advocate B. Raman Pillai, Advocates Anil K. Muhamed, R. Anil, T. Anil Kumar, Manu Tom, Sujesh Menon V.B., and Shyam Aravind.

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

Click here to read/download the Judgment