Testimony Of Partially Hostile Witnesses Can Be Relied Upon If Corroborated: Delhi High Court Upholds Police Officer's Conviction

"It is well settled that the testimony of a hostile witness is not to be discarded in toto and the Court may rely upon those portions of the testimony which inspire confidence and support the prosecution case." Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling dated April 2, 2026, held that the testimony of partially hostile witnesses in a trap case cannot be entirely discarded if it corroborates the material aspects of the prosecution's case.

A single-judge bench of Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha observed that parts of hostile testimony which inspire confidence can be relied upon to sustain a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, while upholding the conviction of an Assistant Sub-Inspector of the Delhi Police for demanding and accepting a bribe.

The appellant, serving as an Assistant Sub-Inspector at the Tis Hazari police post, was convicted by a Special Judge in 2004 for demanding and accepting an illegal gratification of Rs. 1,000 from a complainant in exchange for formally accepting a bail bond. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had laid a successful trap where the accused's hand and pocket washes yielded positive chemical reactions for phenolphthalein powder. The appellant challenged his conviction before the High Court, primarily arguing that the independent shadow and recovery witnesses had turned hostile during the trial.

The primary question before the court was whether a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act could be sustained when independent trap witnesses turn partially hostile. The court was also called upon to determine whether the testimony of a complainant's close friend is inherently unreliable as an "interested witness" and if investigative lapses vitiate the prosecution's case.

Partial Hostility Does Not Erase Credibility

The court thoroughly examined the testimonies of the shadow witness and the recovery witness, noting that while they did not support the actual acceptance of the bribe, they admitted to material pre-trap proceedings. The bench noted that both witnesses confirmed the treatment of currency notes with phenolphthalein powder and the positive pink reaction of the accused's hand and pocket washes. Rejecting the defence's plea to discard their statements, the court emphasised that their admissions heavily corroborated the prosecution's narrative. The court relied on the Supreme Court's mandate in precedents like Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab and Ramesh Harijan v. State of U.P., affirming that courts can sift the chaff from the grain in hostile testimonies.

Silence Of Accused Operates As An Incriminating Circumstance

Delving into the immediate post-trap conduct of the appellant, the High Court observed that the accused did not protest his innocence when apprehended by the CBI team. Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P., the bench highlighted this passive conduct as a crucial evidentiary link. The court remarked that the accused remained quiet upon being challenged, noting that this circumstance further supported the prosecution's case regarding the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.

Close Friends Are Not Automatically "Interested Witnesses"

The defence strongly contended that the corroborating witness who accompanied the complainant was a close friend and thus an unreliable "interested witness". Justice Sudha decisively rejected this argument, clarifying the legal definition of an interested witness. The court ruled that a witness is interested only if they have a direct motive to see the accused convicted due to animus or ulterior reasons. The bench stressed that close relationship with a victim is no ground to summarily reject evidence.

"The mere fact of relationship, far from being a foundation for false implication is often a sure guarantee of truth. There is no proposition in law that relatives are to be treated as untruthful witnesses."

Mere Agreement To Accept Bribe Attracts Section 7 PC Act

Addressing the defence's argument that a co-accused officer was not charge-sheeted despite being named in the FIR, the court analyzed the scope of Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The bench clarified that the actual receipt of money is not strictly required to constitute an offence. The court observed that even an attempt to obtain or an agreement to accept illegal gratification is sufficient to attract criminal liability under the statute. While noting the investigating officer's mischief in dropping the co-accused, the court held this did not exculpate the present appellant.

Investigative Lapses Do Not Vitiate Substantive Evidence

The appellant additionally argued that a three-day delay in forwarding the FIR to the magistrate proved fatal to the prosecution. Dismissing this technicality, the High Court held that such defects in the investigation do not automatically render the prosecution's case unacceptable. Citing judgments like C. Muniappan v. State of T.N., the court concluded that as long as the substantive evidence on record clearly establishes the commission of the offence, procedural lapses by the investigating agency cannot be grounds for acquittal.

Ultimately, the High Court found no infirmity in the trial court's decision and dismissed the criminal appeal. The judgment reinforces the principle that technical investigative flaws and partial witness hostility cannot derail corruption cases where chemical evidence and corroborative testimonies overwhelmingly establish guilt.

Date of Decision: 02 April 2026