Kerala High Court Explains Concept Of 'Contradictions' Under Indian Evidence Act & Pre-Trap Verification In Corruption Cases

Justice A Badharudeen was delivering a judgment in the corruption case of a former village office under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The case arose, when the appellant, a former Village Officer was convicted by Special Court for allegedly demanding and accepting a bribe for affecting land mutation. The appellant challenged the conviction stating that there was improbabilities and contradictions in the prosecution case and that the pre-trap verification of demand was not conducted by the Investigating officer 

The Court thus examined what is meant by contradictions in the eye of law and how it can be proved. 

The Court examined the concept of “Contradiction” under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The Court noted that contradiction is an inconsistency between the statements of witnesses to the police and their testimony in court, where the witness says something that is opposite to or very different from or contrary to what they said in their previous statement.

Procedure For Proving Contradictions

The Court clarified that to prove a contradiction, it is not sufficient merely to refer to differences between prior and subsequent statements; the defence must confront the witness with the specific inconsistent portions and have them marked in evidence. If denied, the investigating officer who recorded the statement must testify to the earlier version to establish the inconsistency formally.

“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. A witness can be contradicted with his previous statements either made by him in writing or reduced into writing by someone.” the Court noted.

The Court explained the purpose of cross examination was three-fold and explained that the right to cross-examine the witness by the accused is the cardinal rule of a fair trial.

“The purpose of cross examination is three-fold, (i) is to test the veracity of the statement made by a witness in his examination-in-chief, (2) is to shake/impeach his credit and (3) is to elicit from that witness any relevant facts which may be favourable to the case for the cross-examiner.” it observed.

It further noted that, to impeach the credibility of witness, if there is any inconsistency in the deposition with the earlier statement then the proof of the former statement has to be brought on record and thereafter it has to be proved.

“In order to impeach the credibility of the witness one of the methods provided under Section 155 of the Evidence Act is to bring out the proof of former statement inconsistent with any part of his evidence in court, which is liable to be contradicted.” the bench noted.

Omissions as Contradictions

The Court further examined when an omission amounts to contradiction and observed:

“An omission may amount to contradiction when what is stated in deposition becomes irreconcilable with what is omitted and impliedly negatives its existence. When omission would amount to contradiction by an example: 'A' made a statement before the police under Section 161(3) of the Code, that he saw 'X' stabbing 'Y' to death; In the witness box, he states that he saw 'X' and 'Z' stabbing 'Y' to death. 'X' omitted to mention that he saw 'X' and 'Z' both stab 'C' to death. Not mentioning the name of 'Z' in the statement before the Police amount to significant and relevant omission as it is not comprehensible that a witness who saw two persons stab 'Y' would mention in the statement before the Police that he saw only one person stab 'Y' to death and therefore in such situations omissions can also amount to contradiction and will have to be proved in the manner prescribed.”

The court further observed that when there is an inherent repugnancy between the testimony and the statement before the Police, even an omission can become a contradiction. It also added that another category of omission resulting in contradiction in instances where a negative aspect of a positive recital is found in the statement. Reliance was placed on Tahsildar Singh & Anr v State of UP [AIR 1959 SC 1012], to explain that a positive statement may have a negative aspect and a negative one a positive aspect.

The Court traced the principle of Contradiction the Rule in Queen Caroline's case in 1820 and observed that:

“The Rule in Queen Caroline's case “laid down the requirement that a cross-examiner, prior to questioning the witness about his own prior statement in writing, must first show it to the witness.”. The same rule finds place in Section 145 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and now in Section 148 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. The rule is based on the principle of fair-play and is essential for proving statements. ”

Pre - Trap Verification in Corruption Case

The appellant has also argued that the entire vigilance trap was vitiated due to failure to verify the alleged demand of bribe before organizing the trap. Citing Mir Mustafa Ali Hasmi v. State of A.P. (2024 LiveLaw (SC) 468) and Sambasiva Rao M. v. State of A.P. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1463), it was contended that the absence of pre-trap verification was fatal.

While agreeing that failure to verify the demand may weaken the prosecution if contradictions or inconsistencies exist, the Court held that such omission is not per se fatal when direct evidence convincingly establishes both demand and acceptance.

“Merely because of an omission at the instance of the investigating officer to make an effort to verify the factum of demand 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.” the Court observed.

The High Court found that the complainant's testimony, corroborated by the decoy witness and supported by recovery evidence, established both demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt.

While upholding the conviction, the Court reduced the six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹20,000 under Section 7, and one year's simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹25,000 under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d), with the substantive sentences to run concurrently.

Case Title: P V Mathew v State

Case No: Crl A 834/ 2011

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 687

Counsel for Appellant: B Raman Pillai (Sr.), Anil K Muhamed, R Anil, T Anil Kumar, Manu Tom, Sujesh Menon V B, Shyam Aravind

Counsel for Respondent: Rajesh A (Spl. PP for VACB), Rekha S (Snr. PP for VACB)