A mere breach of a sale agreement, without evidence of fraud, does not sustain criminal prosecution.

The appellant, acting as power-of-attorney holder for the landowner, alleged that the respondents agreed to purchase land for ₹2.49 crore, paid ₹10 lakh in advance, and then induced him to execute a sale deed recording consideration of only ₹40 lakh, without paying the balance. He further alleged forgery, threats, assault and an attempt to take possession of the land.

Following investigation, the respondents were tried on charges under Sections 419, 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 506, 307 and 34 of the IPC; the trial court acquitted them on 16 March 2024.

The appellant challenged the acquittal.

1. Whether the trial court’s acquittal was perverse or otherwise warranted interference in an appeal against acquittal.

2. Whether the evidence established criminal offences, rather than a dispute arising from an alleged breach of the land-sale agreement, including forgery and attempt to murder.

The Court applied the principle that an appellate court may reappraise evidence in an appeal against acquittal, but may reverse the acquittal only where the trial court’s view is perverse or not a reasonably possible view; a different plausible view is insufficient, and where two views are possible, the view favouring the accused should prevail.

The Court relied on Bhupatbhai Bachubhai Chavda v. State of Gujarat, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 523; Mallappa v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 3 SCC 544; Girish Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, (2020) 18 SCC; and State of Odisha v. Banabihari Mohapatra, (2021) 15 SCC 268.

It also applied the principle that a simple breach of an agreement, without evidence establishing the ingredients of a criminal offence, does not by itself justify criminal prosecution.

The Court considered the dispute to arise from the alleged non-payment of the balance sale consideration and found contradictions, improvements and exaggerations in the prosecution evidence.

The prosecution produced no evidence establishing that the sale deed was forged.

The attempt-to-murder allegation was also unsupported: witnesses did not support that part of the case, the landowner who was said to be present was not examined, and the doctor described the informant’s head bruise as simple.

The Court therefore found the trial court’s acquittal to be a permissible view, not one warranting appellate interference.

Finding no merit in the appeal, it dismissed the acquittal appeal and directed that the trial court record be returned to the concerned court.