Appeal dismissed due to lack of credible evidence and material contradictions in prosecution's case.
In a significant ruling, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, presided over by Justice B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi, dismissed the State's appeal challenging the acquittal of six individuals accused of attempting to murder Potti Margadarshi (PW-1) in a case dating back to September 2002. The judgment was delivered on April 29, 2026, in Criminal Appeal No. 754 of 2009.
The case originated when Potti Margadarshi alleged that he was attacked by six individuals, armed with deadly weapons, with an intent to kill him. The trial court, however, found the accused not guilty under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of credible evidence, leading to their acquittal.
The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Sri C.P. Somayaji, argued that the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence, particularly the testimony of the injured witness, PW-1, and corroborating eyewitnesses, PWs-3 and 4. The prosecution contended that the evidence clearly established the involvement of the accused in the crime.
However, the defense, supported by Amicus Curiae Sri G. Vijaya Saradhi, successfully demonstrated that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were riddled with contradictions and omissions. The defense highlighted that the statements made by the witnesses in court differed significantly from those recorded during the police investigation, thereby undermining their credibility.
The High Court, in its judgment, emphasized that the trial court's decision was based on a possible view of the evidence presented, as per the standards set by the Supreme Court in similar cases. The court noted that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, and the witnesses' credibility was effectively impeached under Section 155 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Justice Chakravarthi concluded that in appeals against acquittals, the appellate court should not interfere with the trial court's findings if the view expressed is a plausible one. Consequently, the High Court upheld the trial court's acquittal, finding no grounds for interference.
The ruling underscores the judiciary's adherence to the principle that convictions should be based on credible and consistent evidence, ensuring justice is not compromised by procedural lapses or incomplete investigations.
Bottom line:-
Appeal against acquittal - Trial Court's decision upheld due to lack of credible evidence from prosecution witnesses, material contradictions in their testimonies, and failure to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
Statutory provision(s): Section 307 IPC, Sections 155, 145 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Sections 162, 209, 313, 405 Cr.P.C.
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Injeti Yesuratnam, (Andhra Pradesh) : Law Finder Doc id # 2901011
