A doubtful sole eyewitness without corroboration cannot displace an acquittal.

The State sought leave under Section 378(3) CrPC to appeal the respondents’ acquittal of charges under Sections 302/34 IPC.

The prosecution alleged that the respondents assaulted the deceased, Dharambir, with a brick, and that PW-3, his brother, witnessed the incident.

The Trial Court found material doubts in PW-3’s account, including the delay in reporting and taking the deceased to hospital, the family’s refusal to use the PCR van, and inconsistencies in the evidence; PW-4, the other alleged eyewitness, did not support the prosecution.

The High Court condoned the 637-day filing delay and considered the State’s leave petition.

Whether the State had made out a prima facie case or raised arguable points warranting leave to appeal against the acquittal.

Whether the Trial Court’s assessment of the eyewitness and surrounding circumstances disclosed a basis for appellate interference.

Section 378(3) CrPC requires the State to obtain the High Court’s leave before an appeal against acquittal may proceed.

Under State of Maharashtra v. Sujay Mangesh Poyareker, (2008) 9 SCC 475, the leave-stage inquiry is whether a prima facie case or arguable points exist; the court should not conduct a minute reappraisal of the evidence, but must consider the relevant material and give reasons for refusing leave.

The Court also applied the eyewitness-reliability principles reiterated in Balram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2024) 20 SCC 490: a wholly reliable witness may sustain a conviction, a wholly unreliable witness must be rejected, and testimony falling between those categories requires corroboration in material particulars.

The Court found that PW-3’s presence at and account of the incident were doubtful.

His evidence was undermined by the unexplained delay in contacting police and obtaining medical treatment, the family’s refusal to let the PCR van transport the injured man, inconsistencies about the brick and the respondents’ identities, and omissions in his prior statement.

PW-4 maintained that he had not seen the respondents assault the deceased, while aspects of his account were consistent with circumstantial evidence.

The alleged informant and other potential public witnesses were not examined, and no other circumstantial evidence sufficiently corroborated PW-3.

In these circumstances, the Court found no prima facie case or arguable ground requiring appellate scrutiny of the acquittal.

The leave petition was dismissed; the 637-day delay had earlier been condoned.