A plausible acquittal based on circumstantial evidence warrants no appellate interference absent perversity.

The prosecution alleged that on 22 February 2019 the accused struck Jivanbhai Babbabhai on the head with a wooden log and took his mobile phone, causing injuries from which he died.

The accused was arrested on 10 March 2019; the prosecution relied principally on the alleged recovery of the phone and CCTV footage.

The Sessions Court acquitted him of offences under Sections 302 and 392 IPC, Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, finding the circumstantial evidence insufficient.

The deceased’s daughter appealed against the acquittal under Section 413 BNSS.

Whether the prosecution established a complete chain of circumstances pointing only to the accused’s guilt

Whether the Trial Court’s acquittal was perverse or otherwise warranted appellate interference

Under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence requires that each circumstance be fully established, that the circumstances be consistent only with guilt, and that the chain exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court should respect the reinforced presumption of innocence and avoid interference where the Trial Court’s view is reasonably possible; interference is justified in exceptional cases, including where the judgment is perverse.

Section 25 of the Evidence Act bars proof against an accused of a confession made to a police officer, while the judgment also considered the absence of a certificate under Section 65B in assessing the CCTV evidence.

The Court found that the alleged motive and recovery were not reliably proved: the deceased’s family had not reported that his phone was stolen, the arrest-panchnama witnesses did not support the prosecution, and ownership of the phone was not established by an invoice.

The accused’s alleged confession to police could not prove the case.

The CCTV footage did not establish the accused’s identity, and the required Section 65B certificate had not been issued by the person controlling the electronic evidence.

Because the recovery itself was doubtful, the accused’s failure to explain it could not supply a missing link in the prosecution case.

The circumstances therefore did not form a complete chain excluding reasonable doubt, and the Trial Court’s conclusion remained a plausible view.

The appeal was dismissed at the admission stage, leaving the acquittal undisturbed.