Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court Sustains Acquittal in Brutal Attack Case Citing 'Improved' Witness Accounts
The has dismissed the state's appeal seeking reversal of acquittal for six members of a Scheduled Caste family charged with attempting to murder a man in 2002. The ruling underscores how discrepancies between courtroom testimony and earlier police statements can undermine the prosecution's case.
A Village Dispute Turns Deadly
On the evening of , Potti Margadarshi was allegedly set upon while passing the house of the accused in Nakkavaripalem village near Mogalturu. According to the prosecution, the six respondents, armed with knives and an iron rod, launched a coordinated assault. One accused allegedly threw chilli powder into the victim's eyes before striking him, while others inflicted wounds to the chest, abdomen, back and head. The injured man was rushed to hospital, and an FIR was registered later that night at .
The tried the case under and acquitted all accused in , prompting the state to approach the High Court after a 250-day delay.
State's Case for Reversal
The Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the injured witness's direct account of the , corroborated by two eyewitnesses and the doctor's evidence of grievous injuries caused by deadly weapons, established guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court, it was submitted, had wrongly discarded credible testimony on minor inconsistencies and failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective.
Accused Highlight Fatal Inconsistencies
The defence, assisted by amicus curiae, pointed to fundamental problems with the prosecution evidence. The victim himself disowned the FIR, claiming his mother never lodged any complaint and that police obtained her signature on blank paper. He further stated that the police case did not reflect true facts and that he had filed a separate private complaint. The described in court differed sharply from what had been recorded during investigation.
The court noted that the victim admitted not stating the specific before police, and that his statement was recorded only after ten days. Eyewitness accounts likewise contained new details never mentioned earlier, amounting to under Section 162 CrPC.
How the Court Examined Witness Credibility
Justice B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi carefully dissected the sequence of events immediately after the incident. Evidence revealed confusion over whether the victim visited the police station while conscious or was taken directly to hospital. The Investigating Officer maintained that the mother presented the complaint at 8 p.m., yet the victim contradicted this version. These discrepancies suggested possible deliberations before the FIR was registered.
The judgment emphasized that the defence had successfully confronted prosecution witnesses with their prior statements, establishing that crucial were never mentioned during investigation. Such omissions were held to be contradictions that impeached the witnesses' credit under .
Key Observations
Justice Chakravarthi observed:
"The evidence of the victim, corroborated by the eyewitnesses and medical evidence, proved the charge, but the trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in proper perspective."
On the contradictions, the court noted:
"The defence successfully proved that the stated by PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4 are omissions amounting to as laid down under "
The judgment further held:
"In the light of the foregoing circumstances, the trial Court did not believe the testimony of PWs-1, 3 and 5 and extended the . On consideration of the evidence on record discussed above and other material, this Court is of the considered opinion that the view taken by the trial Court is a possible view."
This reasoning aligns with the High Court's earlier reporting that "" of prosecution witnesses had warranted the .
Final Ruling and Its Reach
The Criminal Appeal was dismissed, with the court holding that the trial court's acquittal represented a possible view based on evidence and did not merit interference. The assistance rendered by amicus curiae was placed on record.
The decision reinforces the principle that appellate courts should refrain from disturbing acquittals when the trial court's conclusions rest on a reasonable appreciation of inconsistent witness statements. It serves as a reminder to investigators to record statements of injured persons and eyewitnesses promptly to avoid allegations of subsequent improvements.
Justice B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the trial court under .
