Introduction:

In Abhijit George v. Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 39, the Kerala High Court reaffirmed the admissibility of police officers’ testimony, provided it is reliable and trustworthy, and emphasized that such testimony should not be viewed with inherent suspicion solely because the witness belongs to the police department. Justice M.B. Snehalatha, while hearing a criminal revision petition, partially modified the conviction and sentence of an autorickshaw driver who was found guilty under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for using a forged driving license as genuine. The Court reduced the appellant’s sentence from one year of simple imprisonment to three months, taking into account the 14-year gap since the incident occurred.

Appellant’s Arguments:

Advocate Sunny Mathew, representing the appellant, argued that there was no concrete evidence to prove that the appellant forged the driving license or used it as genuine. The appellant contended that the conviction was based solely on the testimonies of police officials, which, according to him, should not be treated as entirely credible. It was further submitted that the lack of independent witnesses rendered the prosecution’s case weak and unreliable. Additionally, the appellant sought leniency because the incident occurred more than a decade ago, urging the Court to consider the passage of time as a mitigating factor in sentencing.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The State, represented by Public Prosecutor Sanal P. Raj, defended the conviction by pointing out that the forged driving license was detected by a sub-inspector during a routine vehicle check. The prosecution highlighted that the sub-inspector’s testimony was corroborated by a civil police officer and further supported by the regional transport officer, who confirmed that the license was not issued from their office. The State argued that there was sufficient evidence to prove that the appellant knowingly used a forged driving license with the intent to deceive authorities. Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kashmiri Lal v. State of Haryana, the prosecution emphasized that the testimony of police officers, if found reliable and trustworthy, is admissible in law and can form the basis for a conviction.

Court’s Observations and Judgment:

After analyzing the evidence and arguments, the Kerala High Court upheld the appellant’s conviction under Section 471 IPC, which penalizes the act of using a forged document as genuine. The Court noted that the testimonies of the sub-inspector who detected the fake license and the civil police officer who corroborated the detection were consistent and credible. It further observed that the regional transport officer’s testimony unequivocally established that the license presented by the appellant was forged and not issued by the transport office, as claimed.

Justice M.B. Snehalatha dismissed the appellant’s contention that police testimonies are inherently unreliable, relying on the Supreme Court’s precedent in Kashmiri Lal v. State of Haryana. The Court stated that the principle of presumption of honesty applies to police officials as much as it does to any other witness. It emphasized that if the evidence provided by police officers is found to be reliable and trustworthy after judicial scrutiny, it can serve as the basis for conviction. The Court observed that public reluctance to testify often necessitates reliance on police officers as witnesses and that their testimony cannot be disregarded merely because they belong to the police department.

The judgment also highlighted the seriousness of the offence, stating that using a forged driving license undermines public trust and road safety. However, because the incident occurred 14 years ago, the Court decided to reduce the sentence from one year of simple imprisonment to three months of simple imprisonment. The decision was aimed at balancing the punitive and reformative aspects of sentencing while acknowledging the significant lapse of time since the offence. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition was allowed in part, modifying the sentence while upholding the conviction.