Presumption of Innocence Must Prevail Unless Prosecution Evidence Is Unimpeachable: Andhra Pradesh High Court

"Even If Two Views Are Possible, Appellate Court Must Respect Acquittal Unless Findings Are Perversely Unreasonable" — In a crucial ruling on the limits of appellate intervention in acquittals, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a criminal appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of two accused persons charged under several serious offences including kidnapping, wrongful confinement, assault with intent to outrage modesty, cheating, and theft.

Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao observed: "The presumption of innocence is fortified after acquittal, and appellate courts must refrain from interference unless the judgment is perverse, palpably illegal, or manifestly unjust."

Case Summary: Serious Allegations But Crumbling Evidence

The appeal arose from a prosecution that alleged Kalneni Chinna Punna Rao (A1) had deceitfully lured and abducted the victim (PW1), confined her at multiple locations, attempted to forcibly marry her, and committed offences under Sections 366-A, 342, 344, 368, 354, 420, 379 read with Section 109 IPC. His sister-in-law Kalneni Sarojini (A2) was charged with abetment.

The prosecution primarily relied on the sole testimony of the victim, supported by her mother (PW2), and claimed that she had been drugged, threatened, confined, and subjected to sexual misconduct. However, the Trial Court found glaring contradictions, absence of corroborative evidence, unexplained 22-day delay in filing the FIR, and crucial non-examination of key witnesses like Babu Rao, in whose house she was allegedly first confined.

Justice Mallikarjuna Rao found that the Trial Court had "carefully and correctly scrutinized" the evidence, and there was "no perversity, misdirection, or miscarriage of justice" warranting interference under Section 378(4) CrPC.

Unexplained FIR Delay a Fatal Blow to Prosecution

One of the key issues was the abnormal delay of 22 days in lodging the FIR, despite serious allegations involving kidnapping and theft. The High Court echoed the Trial Court’s skepticism and cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Apren Joseph v. State of Kerala:

"Undue or unreasonable delay in lodging the FIR inevitably gives rise to suspicion which puts the court on guard... Effect of delay would depend on the facts and circumstances of a given case."

The Court held that the explanation offered — that the victim’s parents were concerned about family reputation — "cannot be accepted as reasonable", especially when they had already approached village elders.

Further, the High Court noted: “If PW1’s parents were reluctant to approach police, they wouldn’t have involved the village elders either. The silence till 12.08.1999 undermines the credibility of the prosecution version.”

Absence of Independent Evidence and Improbabilities in Testimony

The Court meticulously examined the internal inconsistencies and improbabilities in the victim's version. While she claimed to have been held captive in Manduru, Bapatla, Vijayawada, and finally her own village Vadevaripalem, there was no corroboration from any independent witnesses, and no medical examination, no recovery of stolen items, and no effort by the investigating officer to locate the alleged confinement premises.

Critically, the Court highlighted: “If PW1 was held captive in Vijayawada for ten days, a bustling city, it defies logic that she couldn’t alert anyone. She was an educated girl, not naïve or illiterate. These facts make the allegation of wrongful confinement inherently improbable.”

Moreover, PW1's own claim that she was kept in a house in her native village for four days without any neighbours noticing, and her silence throughout the ordeal until the last day, led the Court to doubt the veracity and spontaneity of her claims.

Trial Court’s Acquittal Not Perverse or Illegal

Relying heavily on Supreme Court precedents — including A. Shankar v. State of Karnataka, State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran, Mohan @ Srinivas @ Tailor Seena v. State of Karnataka, and Harbeer Singh v. Sheeshpal — the High Court reaffirmed that: “If two views are possible, the one favouring the accused must be adopted. Appellate courts cannot upset an acquittal unless findings are wholly unreasonable or contrary to record.”

The Court concluded that the "prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt", and the trial court’s appreciation of evidence was "fair, lawful, and reasoned."

Appeal Dismissed, Acquittal Affirmed

In its conclusive paragraph, the High Court categorically stated: “The Trial Court rightly reached its conclusion, providing sound and justifiable reasons. A reappreciation of the evidence reveals no flaw. There is no reason to interfere with the judgment of the Trial Court.”

Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No. 258 of 2009 was dismissed and the acquittal order dated 08.01.2002 in Sessions Case No. 942 of 2000 was upheld.

Date of Decision: 12.12.2025