The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; unexplained delays and inconsistencies in testimony create reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Section 307 - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 235(2) - Conviction for attempted murder - The trial Court convicted the appellant based on the evidence of the de-facto complainant, despite significant delays in lodging the complaint and inconsistencies in witness testimonies. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 2, 10, 12, 18)

(B) Burden of proof - The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and any reasonable doubt must lead to acquittal. (Paras 10, 18)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for attempted murder based on the testimony of the de-facto complainant, who delayed reporting the incident for over two months, claiming unconsciousness. The trial Court acquitted two co-accused.

Findings of Court:
The trial Court's conviction was based on insufficient evidence and failed to consider the unexplained delay in lodging the complaint.

Issues: Whether the trial Court erred in convicting the appellant for attempted murder despite the prosecution's failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the unexplained delay in lodging the complaint and inconsistencies in witness testimonies created reasonable doubt regarding the appellant's guilt.

Result: Appeal allowed; conviction set aside.

JUDGMENT :

(Sambasiva Rao Naidu, J.)

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the first accused in Sessions Case No. 24 of 2011 on the file of Asst. Sessions Judge, Gadwal against his conviction recorded by the trial Court for the offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code (for short I.P.C.).

2. As could be seen from the appeal grounds and other records available before this Court, the trial Court after conducting trial in SC. No. 24 of 2011 against three accused persons for the offence under Section 307 r/w 34 of IPC, having found A2 and A3 not guilty for the offence and found the present appellant, who was shown as A1 guilty for the said offence, convicted him under Section 235(2) of Criminal Procedure Code (for short Cr.P.C.) and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-with default sentence.

3. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant/A1 has filed this Criminal Appeal and challenged his conviction on the following grounds:

The trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence in a proper way and on the basis of presumptions and assumptions, found him guilty for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. The trial Court was wrong in accepting the evidence of PW.1 in spite of the unexplained delay in lodging the complaint before police. There was no explanation from the prosecution as well as PW.1. The appellant has claimed that in the cross-examination, PW.1 has categorically admitted that he was completely recovered from the injuries on 21-11-2010 but still there was 2 days delay in lodging the complaint. The wife of the de-facto complainant, who was examined as PW.2 deposed before the Court that she came to know about the incident through her husband on 19-11-2010, but there was delay in lodging the complaint. According to the evidence of PW.6, the Medical Officer, who treated the de-facto complainant deposed before the Court that by the time PW.1 was admitted to hospital, he was informed that PW.1 suffered injuries due to fall from a motor-cycle i.e., on account of a road traffic accident. The mediators before whom PW.7 said to have recovered the weapon used by A1 in pursuance of the alleged confession turned hostile to the prosecution. But the Court below on the basis of the evidence of PW.1 found the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 307 of IPC, thereby, he is entitled to acquittal.

4. While submitting arguments in this case, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused No. 1 has argued that the entire material placed before the Court indicates that though the offence said to have been committed on 23-09-2010 and in spite of oral evidence of PW.1 that he recovered from the injuries in the month of October and in spite of his evidence that he was completely cured by 19-11-2010, the report was presented to police on 23-11-2010. But in this case, the Medical Officer who treated PW.6 deposed before the Court that he was informed by the family members of PW.1 that he received injuries in a traffic accident. Therefore, these circumstances create any amount of doubt. However, the trial Court without considering all these lacunae's in the case of prosecution, recorded conviction against the appellant, thereby, prayed for setting aside the conviction.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court by saying that soon after the accident, PW.1 fell unconscious which he regained only in the month of November, till then, the wife or other persons interested in PW.1 were not aware of the offence. PW.1 could have explained the delay in presenting the report in his report itself. Therefore, the trial Court rightly found the appellant herein guilty for the offence under Section 307 of IPC, thereby, sought for dismissal of the appeal.

6. As per the material allegations made in the charge sheet that was filed against the appellant and two others, it seems on 23-11-2010, PW.1, the defacto complainant said to have visited police sta

Click Here to Read the rest of this document