AP High Court Upholds Acquittal In Attempt To Murder Case, Says 'Improved Testimonies' Of Prosecution Witnesses Warrants Benefit Of Doubt
The Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld the acquittal of six persons in an attempt to murder case, observing that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses had pointed to overt acts by the accused before the trial court which were not stated in their earlier testimonies and were thus improved statements. The court thus said that omissions in prosecution witness' statements during...
The Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld the acquittal of six persons in an attempt to murder case, observing that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses had pointed to overt acts by the accused before the trial court which were not stated in their earlier testimonies and were thus improved statements.
The court thus said that omissions in prosecution witness' statements during investigation, amounts to material contradictions under Section 162 Cr.P.C. and can justify acquittal due to benefit of doubt.
Justice B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi upheld the acquittal of six accused persons charged under Section 307 IPC, holding that the trial court's view was a “possible view” based on the inconsistencies and improvements in the testimony of prosecution witnesses. The Court observed that evidence of prosecution witnesses–PW-1, PW-3 and PW-5 would establish that the overt acts attributed against the accused in their testimony were not stated earlier in their statements recorded by the police.
"They did not state those overt acts during their statements recorded by the police. The defence successfully proved that the overt acts stated by PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4 are omissions amounting to material contradictions as laid down under Section 162 Cr.P.C. rightly submitted by the learned Amicus Curiae. Therefore, no credit can be attached to such statements, as they are improved statements made before the Court below," the court said.
“In the case on hand as mentioned above, the defence successfully confronted PWs-1, 3 and 4 with their previous statements made in writing by the Investigating Officer (PW-11) during the course of investigation. It is established that the said witnesses did not depose or did not state the overt acts, which they deposed before the Court, in their previous statements. They deposed a new version before the Court below. Hence, it is an omission amounting to contradiction as laid down under Section 162 Cr.P.C...In the light of the foregoing circumstances, the trial Court did not believe the testimony of PWs-1, 3 and 5 and extended the benefit of doubt. 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. Therefore, in an appeal against acquittal, the appellate Court shall not interfere with the opinion of the trial Court if the view expressed by the trial Court is a possible view, based on the evidence.”
Relying on N. Vijay Kumar v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) the Court reiterated that an appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal where the view taken by the trial court is a plausible one based on the evidence available on record.
The Court explained that Sections 145 and 155 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 permit cross-examination on previous written statements and impeachment of a witness's credit by proving inconsistencies between prior statements and testimony before the Court.
The case arose from a criminal appeal filed by the State challenging the acquittal of six accused persons charged under Section 307 IPC for allegedly attacking the injured victim with knives and an iron rod. According to the prosecution, the accused intercepted the victim while he was returning home, sprinkled chilli powder into his eyes and attacked him with deadly weapons, causing bleeding injuries.
The prosecution contended that the testimony of the injured witness and eyewitnesses, corroborated by medical evidence, clearly established the overt acts committed by the accused and proved the offence of attempt to murder. It was argued that the trial court failed to properly appreciate the evidence and wrongly acquitted the accused.
Opposing the appeal, the defence argued that the injured witness himself disowned the prosecution version and stated that the police case did not disclose the true facts. It was further contended that the overt acts attributed to the accused during trial were never stated before the police during investigation and amounted to material omissions and contradictions.
After examining the evidence, the High Court found serious inconsistencies regarding the registration of the FIR and noted that the prosecution witnesses had introduced improved versions before the Court. The Court held that these material contradictions created reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution case and justified the trial court in extending benefit of doubt to the accused.
Holding that the acquittal recorded by the trial court was sustainable and based on a possible appreciation of evidence, the High Court dismissed the State's appeal.
Case Title: State of Andhra Pradesh v. Injeti Yesuratnam & Ors.
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 754 of 2009
Counsel for Appellant: Sri C. Panini Somayaji, Additional Public Prosecutor
Counsel for Respondents: Sri Jakkamsetti Ravindra