Legal Information & Analysis.

AP High Court Overturns Murder Conviction, Citing 'Unreliable' Sole Eyewitness and Lack of Corroboration

AMARAVATI — The Andhra Pradesh High Court has acquitted all accused in a 2012 murder case, overturning a trial court's life sentence. A division bench of Justice K. Suresh Reddy and Justice Subba Reddy Satti ruled that the prosecution "miserably failed" to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, primarily due to the contradictory and unreliable testimony of its sole eyewitness.

The appeals challenged the February 12, 2018 judgment of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, which had convicted seven individuals for the murder of Botta Gangadhara Rao.

---

Background of the Case

The prosecution's case was rooted in a pre-existing gang rivalry. The accused were alleged to have conspired to murder Botta Gangadhara Rao in retaliation for the 2008 killing of Chitti Satish, the brother-in-law of two of the accused.

According to the prosecution, on the intervening night of July 9-10, 2012, the accused ambushed the deceased in Eluru Town. It was alleged that they waylaid him, threw chilli powder on his face, and attacked him with iron rods, causing his death on the spot. The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 341 (wrongful restraint), and 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing them to life imprisonment.

Arguments Before the High Court

The defence counsel argued that there was no credible evidence linking the appellants to the crime. They highlighted that the initial report (Ex.P.1) only named some of the accused and that the sole eyewitness (P.W.1) provided conflicting accounts and even disowned the report during cross-examination. They contended that P.W.1 was not a reliable witness and that other crucial aspects of the prosecution's story, such as the recovery of weapons and an alleged extra-judicial confession, were legally flawed.

The prosecution countered that the testimony of a single eyewitness is sufficient for conviction if it inspires confidence. They maintained that P.W.1's evidence clearly established the motive and the manner of the attack.

Court's Analysis: A Case Built on Shaky Ground

The High Court meticulously dismantled the prosecution's case, pointing out several critical inconsistencies and failures.

• The Unreliable Eyewitness (P.W.1): The Court noted that P.W.1's testimony was riddled with contradictions. In his cross-examination, he made damaging admissions, stating, "I do not know personally how the deceased Gangadhar Rao died." He also disowned the initial police report (Ex.P.1), claiming he did not know who drafted it or what its contents were. The bench observed, "the evidence of P.W.1 does not inspire confidence."

• Lack of Corroboration: The testimony of the other supposed eyewitness (P.W.2) did not support the prosecution. Furthermore, the medical evidence contradicted P.W.1's claim that chilli powder was thrown on the deceased, as the doctor found no such traces. The postmortem report noted only one head injury, which the Court found inconsistent with an attack by multiple people with iron rods.

• Flawed Recoveries and Confession: The Court discredited the recovery of iron rods, noting the contradictory testimony of the punch witness (P.W.10). It also dismissed the alleged extra-judicial confession made by three of the accused to a Village Revenue Officer (P.W.11), who was a stranger to them, deeming it unreliable.

In a pivotal part of the judgment, the Court criticized the trial judge's reasoning for the conviction, which relied on motive and flawed confessional statements despite the lack of credible direct evidence. The High Court stated:

"The above reasoning given by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, is not sustainable under law... Having analyzed the entire evidence carefully, particularly the evidence of P.W.1, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the prosecution miserably failed in establishing guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt."

Final Verdict

Setting aside the trial court's judgment, the High Court allowed all criminal appeals and acquitted the appellants of all charges. The Court directed that any fine paid be refunded and ordered the appellants, who were on bail, to surrender before the trial court to complete necessary formalities.