Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Sarala Devi T.C vs The State Of Kerala on 19 May, 2026
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S)_____________OF 2026
(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NOS. 2910-2911 OF 2026)
SARALA DEVI T.C. ………APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF KERALA ……RESPONDENT
ORDER
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. These appeals arise from the common judgment and order dated
03.12.2025 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Criminal
Appeal Nos. 45 and 46 of 2014, whereby the High Court dismissed the
appeals preferred by the accused/Appellant herein and affirmed the
conviction and sentence imposed by the Enquiry Commissioner & Special
Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in C.C. Nos. 29 of 2008 and 30 of 2008 by
common judgement and order dated 18.12.2013.
4. The prosecution case, as appears from the record, is that the Appellant,
while working as Secretary of Service Co-operative Society Ltd. No. 4280,
Thamarakkulam, misappropriated amounts of Rs. 1,500/- and Rs. 14,000/-
Signature Not Verified allegedly entrusted to her on 16.06.2001 and 26.02.2003 respectively, by
Digitally signed by
NEHA GUPTA
Date: 2026.05.22
18:31:47 IST
failing to account for the same in the records of the Society, as such, FIRs
Reason:
came to be registered against the Appellant. After the completion of
1
investigation, the charge sheets was filed on 02.04.2008, which were taken
on file as CC No. 29 & 30 of 2008, respectively and charges came to
framed under section 13(2) read with section(s) 13(1)(c) & 13(1)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘PC Act’) and section(s) 409,
465 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) in both the
cases. Meanwhile Appellant had filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.
1178 of 2013 in CC No. 30 of 2008 seeking joint trial of both the cases
since the offence alleged against the accused were committed in same
series of transaction, wherein orders were passed to jointly conduct the trial
of both the cases.
5. The Trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence of PW1 to PW6 and
documents marked as Exts. P1 to P13, vide common order dated
18.12.2013, came to the conclusion that prosecution had sufficiently
proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt, as such, the trial court
convicted the Appellant for offences punishable under Sections 409 and
477-A of the IPC and Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with Section
13(2) of the PC Act, and sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for one year each, with fines to the tune of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees One
Thousand Only) each and in default, to undergone rigorous imprisonment
for a further period of one month each, in both the cases bearing CC No.
29 and 30 of 2008, respectively. The sentences were directed to run
concurrently. However, the Appellant was acquitted for the offence under
section 465 of IPC.
6. Aggrieved by the common order of conviction and sentence, the Appellant
preferred two Criminal Appeals bearing Crl. A No. 45 and 46 of 2014
challenging the common order of conviction and sentence passed by trial
court in CC No. 29 and 30 of 2008, respectively.
2
7. The High Court, re-appreciated the evidence and affirmed the findings of
the Trial Court, vide judgement and order dated 03.12.2025, holding that
the testimony of PW2 and PW3, coupled with documentary evidence,
sufficiently established entrustment of the amounts and failure on the part
of the Appellant to account for the same. Hence, aggrieved by the said
order, the present appeals have been preferred.
8. We have heard learned counsels for the Appellant and respondents. The
principal contention canvassed on behalf of the appellant is that
entrustment has not been proved and that the receipts relied upon by the
prosecution were not duly established in accordance with law. It has further
been contended that the entire prosecution case rests upon the oral
testimony of PW2 and PW3, whose evidence suffers from serious
infirmities and lacks the degree of reliability necessary to sustain a
conviction in a criminal trial. It is also urged that PW3, who allegedly
entrusted the amounts to the Appellant, was himself initially arrayed as an
accused in the very same crime and, therefore, his testimony required strict
corroboration in material particulars, which is conspicuously absent in the
present case. As such, he has prayed for the allowing the present appeal.
9. Per Contra, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent
State has vehemently objected to said contentions canvassed by the
appellant and has stated that both the trial court and high court have rightly
appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and documentary
exhibits to arrive at findings of conviction. As such, the learned counsel
has prayed for dismissal of the present appeal.
10. We have given our anxious and thoughtful consideration to submissions
tendered at the bar and have perused the material on record. The
prosecution case fundamentally rests upon Ext.P1(b) and Ext.P3(ab), being
3
the receipts allegedly executed by the Appellant acknowledging receipt of
amounts of Rs.1,500/- (Fifteen Hundred Rupees Only) and Rs.14,000/-
(Fourteen Thousand Rupees Only) respectively. The genuineness of these
receipts, therefore, constitutes the very foundation upon which the
prosecution seeks to establish entrustment and consequential
misappropriation.
11. At the outset, it requires to be noticed that PW3, the then Agricultural
Officer attached to Krishi Bhavan, Thamarakkulam, who allegedly
entrusted the aforesaid amounts to the Appellant, was originally arrayed as
Accused No.1 in the Ext. 9 FIR, however, his case was subsequently split
up and he has been acquitted. The defence case throughout has been that
the receipts in question were fabricated by PW3 in collusion with PW2,
namely the President of the Society, in order to shield PW3 from vigilance
proceedings relating to missing subsidy amounts. Although PW3 stood
acquitted, his evidence so far as it inculpated the appellant is that of an
Interested Witness. A ‘Interested witness’ is one who derives some benefit
from the result of the litigation in the decree in a civil case or in seeing an
accused person punished.1 Though it is a settled proposition of law that it
there is no invariable rule that interested evidence can never form the basis
of conviction unless corroborated to a material extent in material
particulars by independent evidence, however it is necessary that evidence
of interested witnesses should be subjected to careful scrutiny and
examined with caution. If upon such scrutiny, the testimony of such witness
is found to be intrinsically reliable or so probable that by itself it is
1
Ref: Ramji Singh v. State of U.P., (2020) 2 SCC 425 & Ganpathi v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2018) 5 SCC 549.
4
sufficient in the circumstances of the case to base a conviction, the courts
can rely on the same without any hesitation.2
12. Hence, in this background, when this court considers the evidence on
record. It is admitted that PW1 did not possess any direct knowledge
regarding the transactions Ext. P1 file and Ext. P3(a) file, as such, his
testimony is not of relevance to establish entrustment. It is undisputed that
PW3, whose testimony was relied upon by the prosecution to prove the
entrustment, had deposed that appellant had put her signature in Ext. P1(b)
receipt and Ext. P3(ab) on the letter head of the society and issued the same
to PW 3 nevertheless is also undisputed that the said letter head was not in
exclusive possession of the appellant and the same could have been used
by PW2, the President of the society as well. It is noteworthy that the
defence consistent stand was PW2 and PW 3 were related to each other
since they were workers of the same political party, as such, the possibility
of them colluding with each other could not have been ruled out. It is also
noteworthy that PW3 was charged as an accused in Ext. 9 FIR but stood
acquitted. The trial court and appellate court accepted the oral testimony of
PW3 regarding the identification of the disputed receipts.
13. It is apt and appropriate to note the testimony relied by the trial court and
appellate court had come from a previously implicated individual, as such,
the trial court and appellate court ought to have made a calibrated approach
to admit the credibility and reliability of said testimony after close scrutiny
and sufficient corroboration. However, in the present case, the
identification of Ext. P1(b) and Ext. P3(ab) was solely accepted on the
basis of oral testimonies and no attempt was made on behalf of the
prosecution to obtain evidence of expert examination or any other
2
Hari Obula Reddy v. State of A.P., (1981) 3 SCC 675 (Ref. Para 24).
5
independent witnesses as it would corroborate evidence of PW 2 and PW3.
The Courts below accepted PW2’s testimony under Section 47 of the
Evidence Act on the ground that he was acquainted with the handwriting
of the Appellant while functioning together in the Society. Section 47 of
evidence Act makes relevant the opinion of a person who though is not an
expert as per Section 45 of the evidence Act, his testimony becomes
relevant by virtue of the fact that he is acquainted with the handwriting of
the person alleged to have authored the document. A Person may be
acquainted with the handwriting of another person mainly in three ways,
viz
1. When he has seen that person write;
2. When he has received communication purporting to be written by
that person in answer to documents purporting to be written by
himself, although neither of them saw each other write; and
3. In the ordinary course of business documents purporting to be
written by that person have been habitually submitted to him.
14. However, such kind of non-expert evidence can be considered to be the
better than expert evidence, if the person deposing to it is disinterested.
Moreover, even if the witnesses assert firmly or otherwise, his testimony is
merely an opinion based on the comparison in the mind between the
disputed writing and an example formed by his previous experience. As
such, the opinion of such person under section 47 is not conclusive by itself
and the court is to determine regarding the reliability of the said evidence
after considering cumulatively the other strong circumstances to prove the
execution of the disputed document. In this background, when the
testimony of PW2 is considered relevant under section 47, it should be
borne in mind that appellant primary defence was fabrication in collusion
6
between PW2 and PW3 who were workers of same political affiliation.
Therefore, it could not be said in all probability that PW2 statement which
though held relevant can be the sole basis to arrive at the conclusion that
the disputed receipts possessed the handwriting of appellant and the
prosecution was expected to establish the genuineness of disputed receipts
by independent evidence by way of an expert or otherwise, which has not
happened in the present case. This omission assumes considerable
importance because the entire prosecution case regarding entrustment is
inseparably intertwined with the authenticity of the disputed receipts.
15. What further weakens the prosecution story is the material discrepancy
surrounding Ext.P3(ab). According to the prosecution, the amount of
Rs.14,000/- was allegedly entrusted to the Appellant on 26.02.2003.
However, the corresponding receipt relied upon by the prosecution bears
the date 03.03.2003, nearly five days after the alleged entrustment. No
satisfactory explanation has been offered by the prosecution regarding this
inconsistency. If the receipt represented contemporaneous
acknowledgment of payment, the discrepancy in dates strikes at the very
genuineness of the transaction alleged by the prosecution.
16. The Trial Court itself acquitted the Appellant for the offence punishable
under Section 465 IPC relating to forgery. Once the prosecution failed to
conclusively establish the authenticity of the disputed documents for the
purpose of forgery, the same documents could not have been treated as
unimpeachable evidence of entrustment for sustaining conviction under
Section 409 IPC and the provisions of PC Act by itself, as such, the
prosecution was required to bring on record independent witnesses or
forensic evidence of sterling quality. The reasoning adopted by the Courts
below suffers from an inherent inconsistency inasmuch as the same
7
evidentiary material was considered insufficient for one charge and
simultaneously treated as conclusive for another.
17. The offence under Section 409 IPC necessarily postulates proof of
entrustment coupled with dishonest misappropriation. Entrustment is not a
matter of presumption, but a foundational jurisdictional fact which the
prosecution is bound to establish affirmatively and beyond reasonable
doubt. Mere absence of corresponding entries in the cash book or day book
of the Society cannot by itself establish misappropriation unless lawful
entrustment is first proved through cogent and reliable evidence, which in
our considered view was not sufficiently established.
18. At the cost of repetition, the prosecution failed to produce any independent
material such as contemporaneous disbursement registers, treasury
records, acknowledgment registers, vouchers, or testimony of any
independent witness to establish actual delivery of cash to the Appellant.
Conviction, therefore, has substantially been recorded on the basis of
doubtful documentary evidence coupled with testimony of witnesses
whose evidence required careful and necessary corroboration.
19. We also find merit in the contention advanced on behalf of the Appellant
regarding applicability of the provisions of the PC Act. The prosecution
was required to establish that the Appellant answered the description of a
“public servant” within the meaning of Section 2(1)(c) of the Act. The
Courts below appear to have proceeded on the assumption that since
agricultural subsidies were routed through the Society, the Society itself
became an aided institution. However, there is no cogent evidence on
record demonstrating that the Society was “receiving or had received
financial aid” from the Government in the manner contemplated by the
statutory provision.
8
20. It is trite law that suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute the place of
proof. As such, Criminal Courts are duty bound to ensure that conviction
follows only upon evidence which inspires confidence beyond reasonable
doubt. The burden always rests upon the prosecution and never shifts upon
the accused to establish innocence. It is noteworthy, that the Appellant has
undergone the ordeal of criminal prosecution for more than two decades in
relation to alleged misappropriation of amounts. While sympathy cannot
substitute legal proof, the prolonged pendency of criminal proceedings
founded upon doubtful evidence reinforces the necessity of strict
adherence to settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. As such. upon
cumulative assessment of the evidence on record, we are of the considered
view that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges against the
Appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence adduced falls
substantially short of the degree of certainty necessary for sustaining
conviction.
21. However, we clarify that the appellant would not be entitled to claim any
service benefit including any pension from the State Government or the
Service Cooperative Society Ltd. Thamarakkulam, as undertaken by the
appellant in her affidavit at para 5.
22. Consequently, the appeals are allowed. The common judgment and order
dated 03.12.2025 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in
Criminal Appeal Nos.45 and 46 of 2014 affirming the common judgment
and order dated 18.12.2013 passed by the Enquiry Commissioner &
Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in C.C. Nos.29 and 30 of 2008 are
hereby set aside. Therefore, the Appellant stands acquitted of all charges
and is directed to be released, if in custody, forthwith.
9
23. Bail bonds, if any, shall stand discharged. Pending application(s), if any,
stands consigned to record.
……………………………………..J.
[ARAVIND KUMAR]
……………………………………..J.
[PRASANNA B. VARALE]
NEW DELHI;
MAY 19th, 2026.
10
ITEM NO.58 COURT NO.14 SECTION II-D
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)
No(s).2910-2911/2026
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and
order dated 03-12-2025 in CRLA No.45/2014 03-
12-2025 in CRLA No.46/2014 passed by the High
Court of Kerala at Ernakulam]
SARALA DEVI T.C. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF KERALA Respondent(s)
FOR ADMISSION
Date : 19-05-2026 These petitions were called
on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bijo Mathew Joy, AOR
Ms. Gifty Marium Joseph, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. C. K. Sasi, AOR
Dr. K. K. Geetha, Adv.
Ms. Meena K. Poulose, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made
the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
Criminal Appeals are allowed in terms of
1
the signed order placed on the file.
Pending application(s), if any, stands
consigned to record.
(NEHA GUPTA) (AVGV RAMU)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
2
[ad_1]
Source link
