Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 25441

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
K.Suresh Reddy, K.Sreenivasa Reddy, JJ
A.10 – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.383 of 2017 | 505 of 2017 | 806 of 2017

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R.Basant, Varun Byreddy, P.Veera Reddy, Sodum Anvesha, B.Adinarayana Rao, P.Rajesh Babu
For the Respondents: Marri Venkata Ramana

A conviction based on the solitary testimony of an injured witness requires absolute reliability. Where the investigation is fundamentally defective, medical evidence is inconsistent, and the witness's presence is credibly disputed, the court cannot sustain a conviction without substantive corroboration.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 302, 307, 326, 427 read with 149 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 25, 26, 27 and 157 - Criminal Appeal - Principles of appreciation of evidence - Solitary testimony of injured witness - Requirement of corroboration in case of discrepancies and suspicious investigation - In a case where the prosecution relies on the testimony of a solitary injured witness, such testimony must be unimpeachable, true, and trustworthy. Where the defence disputes the presence of the witness at the scene of occurrence and the investigation is marred by serious lacunae—such as non-seizure of medical records, failure to seize blood-stained clothing, and unexplained delays or inconsistencies in the FIR and remand reports—the evidence cannot be accepted without material corroboration. (Paras 15, 16, 24, 29, 38)

(B) Appellate Review - Duty of Court - Criminal trial is meant to ensure that while innocent persons are not punished, the guilty do not escape. However, appellate courts must meticulously scrutinize testimony when motive is established on both sides and medical evidence fails to corroborate the oral account. (Paras 28, 29, 44)

Facts of the case:
The prosecution alleged that a group of individuals formed an unlawful assembly, intercepted a vehicle, and committed murder and attempted murder. The trial court convicted two individuals while acquitting others. The convicted individuals filed appeals against their conviction, and an appeal was also filed challenging the acquittal of the other co-accused.

Issues: Whether the solitary testimony of the alleged injured witness was sufficient to sustain a conviction beyond reasonable doubt in the face of significant evidentiary gaps and a disputed presence at the scene.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the investigation was perfunctory, citing the failure to seize critical medical documents from hospitals, the absence of blood-stained clothes, and contradictions in the record. The medical evidence did not support the nature of the injuries described by the prosecution, and the testimony was found to suffer from numerous infirmities.

Ratio Decidendi: When a prosecution case rests on the sole testimony of an interested witness whose presence is seriously disputed, and the investigating agency commits substantial lapses in collecting essential evidence, the testimony cannot be treated as 'wholly reliable'. In such cases, the court must be circumspect and reject the testimony if it is neither supported by reliable medical records nor free from reasonable doubt.

Result: Appeals allowed; convictions and sentences set aside.

Table of Content
1. procedural background and trial court conviction summary. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. prosecution's version of events and procedural history of the investigation. (Para 6 , 7)
3. appellate arguments concerning witness credibility and investigation fairness. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. legal standards for evaluating solitary/interested witness testimony. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
5. deficiencies in medical record-keeping and lack of corroboration for injured witnesses. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)
6. impact of defective investigation on prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44)
7. acquittal due to absence of reliable proof of the alleged offence. (Para 45 , 46)

These Criminal Appeals are preferred against the judgment dated 09.03.2017 in Sessions Case No.379 of 2014 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool.

2. Originally, a case in crime No.56 of 2013 of Dhone Rural Police Station was registered against A.1 to A.13. Police, after completion of investigation, deleted names of A.2 to A.4 and A.6, and filed charge sheet against the other accused viz. A.1, A.5, A.7 to A.13. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges for the offences - punishable under Sections 148 read with 149; 302 read with 149; 307 read with 149 and 427 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) against A.1, A.5, A.7 to A.13. After full-fledged trial, vide the impugned judgment, the learned Sessions Judge found A.5, A.7, A.8, A.9, A.11, A.12 and A.13 not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 149 IPC; 307 read with 149 IPC and 148 read with 149 IPC and found A.1, A.5, A.7 to A.13 not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 427 read with 149 IPC, and accordingly, acquitted them of the respective charges.

3. The learned Sessions Judge found A.1 and A.10 guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 149 IPC, 148 read with 149 IPC and 326 read with 149 IPC and accordingly convicted them of the said offences. The learned Sessions Judge sentenced A.1 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months, for the offence under Section 302 read with 149 IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months, for the offence under Section 326 read with 149 IPC, and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence under Section 148 read with 149 IPC.

The learned Sessions Judge sentenced A.10 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months, for the offence under Section 302 read with 149 IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months, for the offence under Section 326 read with 149 IPC, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence under Section 148 read with 149 IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

4. Challenging the conviction and sentence, A.10 preferred Criminal Appeal No.383 of 2017 and A.1 preferred Criminal Appeal No.505 of 2017 before this Court. Challenging the acquittal of A.5, A.7 to A.9 and A.11 to A.13, P.W.4 preferred the Criminal Appeal No.806 of 2017.

5. Substance of charge against the accused is that on 14.04.2013 at about 10.00 PM, near in the outskirts of Yerraguntla village after crossing Dhone, at water-pipes causeway near culvert on Yerraguntla village-Dhone road, all the accused formed themselves into unlawful assembly and caused death of Mallu Sreenivasa Reddy (deceased), and in the course of same transaction, the accused attempted to commit murder of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 25441

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHK.Suresh Reddy, K.Sreenivasa Reddy, JJA.10 – AppellantVersusState – RespondentCRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.383 of 2017 | 505 of 2017 | 806 of 2017

Cases Referred (6)

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
K.Suresh Reddy, K.Sreenivasa Reddy, JJ
A.10 – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.383 of 2017 | 505 of 2017 | 806 of 2017