AP HIGH COURT HELD THAT
Appeal against acquittal — Interference by appellate Court — Possible view doctrine — Acquittal confirmed (Paras 14–16)
Issue: Whether judgment acquitting accused of offences under Sections 148, 302, 307, 326 and 506 r/w 149 IPC required interference in appeal against acquittal.
Facts: Trial Court acquitted accused in a faction-murder case arising out of land dispute; most eyewitnesses including PWs.1 to 4, 7 to 12 and mediators turned hostile, and prosecution mainly relied upon injured eyewitness PW.13. Trial Court found serious improbabilities in prosecution version and doubted presence of PW.13 at scene.
Held: When the view taken by Trial Court is a “possible view” based on evidence on record, appellate Court should not interfere merely because another view is possible; double presumption of innocence operates in favour of acquitted accused. Acquittal confirmed. (Paras 14–16)
Evidence — Injured eyewitness — Reliability — Medical evidence contradicting ocular version — Testimony unsafe for conviction (Paras 14(viii)–(xvi))
Issue: Whether sole testimony of injured eyewitness PW.13 was reliable to sustain conviction.
Facts: PW.13 claimed that while intervening during attack on deceased, accused hacked him with hunting sickles causing injuries on head, knee and mouth; however, doctors PW.19 and PW.20 opined injuries were consistent with blunt-force impact/fall from motorcycle and found no corresponding incised injuries or dental injuries as alleged. Evidence of PW.9 and Investigating Officer suggested PW.13 sustained injuries in a road accident after dashing a stationed vehicle.
Held: Medical evidence materially contradicted ocular testimony, creating serious doubt regarding presence of PW.13 at scene and manner of injuries; his evidence was not wholly trustworthy and unsafe to base conviction upon. (Paras 14(viii)–(xvi))
Criminal trial — Motive — Weak and doubtful motive — Effect where eyewitness account unreliable (Paras 12(i)–(v))
Issue: Whether prosecution established convincing motive for accused to murder deceased.
Facts: Prosecution alleged land dispute arising from agreement of sale and pending civil suit as motive; however, wife of deceased/PW.5 admitted deceased was involved in several faction disputes and criminal litigations, had multiple enemies in village, and civil suit itself was dismissed holding entire sale consideration was paid.
Held: Alleged motive attributed to accused was weak, shaky and doubtful; where eyewitness account itself was unreliable, failure to establish convincing motive further weakened prosecution case. (Paras 12(i)–(v))
