The Seventh Section of the Provincial Court of Sevilla has acquitted three men who faced sentences of up to nine years in prison for running over another man, who lost his right leg after it was amputated. The court considers that the contradictions of the victim, who provided up to four different versions, prevent undermining the presumption of innocence.
The Provincial Court of Sevilla has issued an acquittal for three residents of the province who were accused of deliberately running over a man, causing the amputation of his right leg. The court has determined that the multiple contradictory versions of the victim do not allow for a conviction to be upheld.
The Public Prosecutor's Office had requested between seven and nine years of imprisonment for the defendants for attempted homicide. However, the Chamber concluded that the evidence presented does not manage to undermine the presumption of innocence, a fundamental principle of criminal law.
Four Versions of Events
The key to the acquittal has been the lack of coherence in the victim's account. According to the ruling, the man provided up to four different versions of what happened, which raised reasonable doubts about the authorship of the events.
The first version was given to the officers who attended to him at the hospital. The police stated that the man was in a state of disorientation and that they could not take a formal statement from him. At that moment, the victim spoke of Colombian drug traffickers who had arrived by helicopter with a pallet of cocaine, and mentioned his sister and daughter, despite not having any daughters.
Later, the victim told his mother a different version. In this account, he claimed that only two of the accused had assaulted and run him over, and that they intended to force him to participate in a robbery. He even stated that they wanted to put him in a pond to search for buried money.
The Judicial Statements
Months later, already in judicial proceedings, the man declared that on the day of the events he received a call from one of the accused to go robbing. According to this version, when they arrived at the Caminos del Valle, they abandoned the robbery and an assault began inside the vehicle. He claimed that one of the defendants pulled him out of the car and another ran over him in reverse with his right leg.
Finally, in the oral trial, the victim provided a fourth version: he maintained that the three accused pulled him out of his home, administered him scopolamine, and put him in the trunk of a car. Then, according to his account, they tied his feet, dragged him, and ran the car over him. He attributed the events to a revenge for having stolen a bicycle from one of the accused.
When questioned about the contradictions, the man justified that he was not feeling well at first and that the statements to his mother were due to his desire for her to untie him, as he was immobilized in the hospital. The court did not find these explanations credible.
The Victim's Condition and the Investigation
The victim was transferred to the Virgen Macarena University Hospital after being found at home with disorientation and confusion syndrome. There, he was diagnosed with a crush injury to his right leg that necessitated amputation. The first officers who attended to him had already warned that they could not take a formal statement due to his condition.
The ruling highlights that the victim's mother recorded a conversation with her son in which he narrated a version of the events. That recording was submitted to the investigation, but it was not sufficient to establish the authorship of the accused.
The court emphasizes that, despite the severity of the injuries, the evidence presented does not allow for a certain determination of who was responsible. The acquittal is based on the lack of solid evidence and the contradictions in the victim's testimony.
Reactions and Consequences
The acquittal has been received with relief by the three accused, who have maintained their innocence throughout the process. The defense of the defendants has highlighted that the presumption of innocence has prevailed and that the contradictions of the victim were insurmountable.
For its part, the Public Prosecutor's Office has not announced whether it will appeal the decision. The victim, who resides in the province of Sevilla, will have to face the consequences of the amputation without a criminal conviction attributing responsibility to the accused.
The case highlights the importance of coherence in testimonies and the difficulty of proving crimes when the victim's account is contradictory. For the residents of Sevilla, this ruling serves as a reminder that justice requires solid evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
You may also like
