The single-judge bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that when an accused person sustains injuries during an incident, it becomes crucial for the prosecution to provide a satisfactory explanation for those injuries. If the prosecution fails to do so, it can lead to doubts about the credibility of their case.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the accused no. 3 and 4 abused PW 4 and accused no. 1 and 2 attacked the family of PW 1. Later on, accused no. 2 brought a knife and hacked on the hands of PW 1. Then, accused no. 1 also attacked PW 2. Thereafter, accused no. 2 dragged PW 3 on the ground, removed her saree, and hacked her with the same knife. Furthermore, the case was registered under Sections 307, 354 r/w.34 of IPC against accused Nos.1 to 4. The trial Court found the accused Nos.1 and 2 not guilty of the offense under Section 307 of IPC, found accused No.2 not guilty of the offense under Section 354 of IPC, found accused Nos.1 to 4 not guilty of the offense under Section 323 of IPC, found accused Nos.3 and 4 are not guilty of the offense under Section 307 r/w.34 IPC, found accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 are not guilty of the offence under Section 354 r/w.34 IPC and accused Nos.1 to 4 are acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. Therefore, the present criminal revision is filed by the Petitioner.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner contended that the trial court failed to consider the material on record and erred in acquitting the accused persons.
Contentions of the Respondent
The Respondent contended that there exists no independent witness to the incident. It was also contended that there was an unexplained delay in the lodging of the FIR. Also, the prosecution failed to prove the motive against the accused.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that during the incident accused no, 2 and 4 sustained injuries due to which they filed the counter case and the prosecution has not placed the true genesis of the case by placing evidence in respect of counter case and also injuries sustained by accused Nos.2 to 4. Furthermore, the court observed that it becomes imperative for the prosecution to offer a convincing explanation of any injuries the accused person may have sustained during an event. If the prosecution fails to accomplish this, it may raise questions about the credibility of their case. When the accused's injuries are not explained, it may be assumed that "the evidence presented by prosecution witnesses may be untrue." The injuries support the plea taken by the accused.
The court relied upon the judgments titled Mohar Rai v. The State of Bihar, Lakshmi Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar, and Kumar v. State Represented by Inspector of Police.
The court noted that the testimony of PW 1 to 4 is not cogent and consistent. Furthermore, unexplained delay in the lodging of the FIR is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the opinion that there exists no perversity or manifest error of law or miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the trial Court.
The decision of the case
With the above direction, the court dismissed the criminal revision.
Case title: P. Tata Reddy, Pevali [m], West Godavari Dist. Vs Padala Chandra Reddy Chandra Sekhara Reddy W G Dist 4otr and Others
Coram: Justice V. Srinivas
Case No.: CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 222/2010
Advocate for the Petitioner: D SANGEETHA REDDY
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :
