The Seventh Section of the Provincial Court of Seville has acquitted three men who faced sentences of between seven and nine years in prison for an alleged intentional hit-and-run that resulted in the amputation of the victim's right leg. The court considers that the injured party's testimony changed up to four times, thus failing to overcome the presumption of innocence.
The Seville Court has dismissed the charges against three men for an alleged hit-and-run with premeditation that occurred in the area of Caminos del Valle. The victim, who lost a leg, provided contradictory accounts that led the judges to apply the principle of presumption of innocence. The ruling, known this week, acquits the defendants as it finds there is no solid evidence beyond the variable testimony of the complainant.
Four Different Accounts of the Same Incident
According to the judicial resolution, the affected individual changed his version of events on four occasions throughout the proceedings. The first account took place in the hospital when National Police officers attempted to take his statement. At that moment, the injured man spoke of alleged Colombian drug traffickers who had arrived by helicopter and of a pallet of cocaine unloaded at the scene, as well as a sister who supposedly took the drugs. The court highlights that the man has no daughters, despite mentioning them in that account.
Subsequently, the injured party told his mother a different story: he claimed that only two of the defendants had assaulted him and run him over with the car, and that they tried to force him to participate in a robbery and to search for supposed buried money in a pond. The mother recorded that conversation and took it to the police. In the recording, the man stated that they had run over him one or two times and that he was able to walk back home.
“They ran the car over me one or two times and left me there, but I was able to walk back home,” is heard in the recording provided by the mother.
Months later, already in court, the victim changed his account again. On this occasion, he stated that on the day of the events, he was at home when he received a call from one of the defendants to go robbing. According to his version, when they arrived at Caminos del Valle, they gave up the robbery, and then an assault occurred inside the vehicle, with blows from all sides. He claimed that one of the defendants pulled him out of the car and a third one ran over his right leg in reverse, after which he remembered nothing until waking up in the hospital.
The Oral Trial and the Fourth Version
The fourth explanation came during the oral hearing. In court, the injured party stated that the three defendants pulled him from his home, administered burundanga to him, and placed him in the trunk of a vehicle. From there, he maintained that they dragged him with the car along the paths, ran over him, and then put him back in the vehicle before abandoning him under the block where he lived.
When questioned about the contradictions, he tried to justify them by claiming that he was not well at first and that what he said to his mother was in response to a desire for her to untie him, as he was immobilized in the hospital. He added that, over time, he had begun to remember a kidnapping, the alleged administration of burundanga, the trunk, and the hit-and-run. However, the court considers that these explanations are insufficient to turn his testimony into solid and consistent evidence.
The court emphasizes that the victim's statement, to serve as the sole basis for a conviction, must meet requirements such as consistency in the incrimination and the absence of essential contradictions. In this case, the evolution of the testimony and the lack of external corroborations prevent overcoming the presumption of innocence. The judges add that there are no peripheral elements that corroborate the various statements of the complainant.
Consequences of the Acquittal
With this ruling, the three defendants are free from all criminal responsibility. The prosecution had requested sentences of between seven and nine years in prison for attempted homicide, considering that the hit-and-run was intentional. The defence, for its part, always maintained the innocence of its clients and pointed out the contradictions in the victim's testimony.
The ruling of the Seville Court reminds that, although the victim suffered serious injuries that led to the amputation of a leg, justice cannot convict based on a narrative that varies substantially on key points. The court insists that the evidence presented does not allow for a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.
For the residents of the capital of Seville, this case serves as an example of how the judicial system applies the principle of presumption of innocence even in cases of great severity. The ruling is not final and can be appealed to the Superior Court of Justice of Andalusia.
You may also like
