A plausible and reasonable acquittal cannot be overturned absent patent perversity or misappreciation of evidence.

On 02.07.2012, Surjeet Singh, a labourer working at Ponda, Kinnaur, was allegedly assaulted near a Fair Price Shop by Rahul Negi, Dalip Singh, Harish Kumar, Deepak Kumar and a juvenile co-accused, using a danda, belt, fists and kicks.

Surjeet Singh sustained serious injuries and died while being taken for further medical treatment.

An FIR was registered under Sections 341, 323, 147, 149 and 506 IPC, and the case was subsequently converted to include Section 302 IPC.

The Sessions Court acquitted all four accused, holding that their identity was doubtful, the eyewitnesses had materially improved their versions, the recoveries were unreliable, and the medical and forensic evidence did not connect them with the crime.

The State appealed against the acquittal.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the identity and participation of the respondents in the alleged assault resulting in Surjeet Singh’s death, on the basis of the eyewitness testimony and surrounding circumstances?

Whether the alleged recoveries of the danda and waist belt were admissible and sufficiently reliable under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?

Whether the medical and forensic evidence corroborated the prosecution’s version and connected the accused or the seized articles with the deceased’s death?

Whether the Trial Court’s acquittal was so perverse or unreasonable as to warrant appellate interference?

The Court applied Sections 147, 149, 302, 323, 341 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code concerning unlawful assembly, common liability, murder, hurt, wrongful restraint and criminal intimidation.

It applied Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, under which only that portion of information supplied by an accused in custody which distinctly relates to the fact discovered is admissible; the discovery must be the direct consequence of such information, as stated in Pulukuri Kotayya v. Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67.

The Court further applied the settled appellate principle that an acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence and should not be disturbed merely because another view is possible; interference is justified only where the judgment is perverse, based on a misreading or omission of material evidence, or where no reasonable view supports the acquittal, as held in Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, (2025) 5 SCC 433, and reiterated in State of M.P. v. Ramveer Singh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1743, and Tulasareddi v. State of Karnataka, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 89.

The Court also referred to Section 437-A CrPC, corresponding to Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concerning bail bonds to secure the accused’s appearance before the Supreme Court.

The Court held that the eyewitness evidence was materially unreliable. The initial complaint named only Rahul Negi and Deepak Kumar and described the remaining assailants as unidentified, while the witnesses later implicated Dalip Singh and Harish Kumar without any Test Identification Parade.

Their earlier statements before the Juvenile Justice Board indicated that they were strangers to the accused and did not know their names, making their first-time dock identification doubtful, particularly in the absence of a TIP.

Their claim of identifying the assailants in the light of an electric bulb was also contradicted by defence evidence and the photograph showing darkness at the spot.

Material inconsistencies regarding the time of occurrence, police arrival, the location of the injured persons, and whether Surjeet Singh was taken to the dera or directly to the hospital further undermined the prosecution narrative.

The alleged recoveries did not satisfy the requirements of Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

The independent witness to the danda recovery denied that it had been recovered pursuant to Rahul Negi’s disclosure and stated that the police had brought it from the place of occurrence.

Similarly, the attesting witness to the belt recovery stated that the belt was already in police custody.

The medical evidence did not support the alleged use of the danda and belt, while forensic examination detected no blood on either article and failed to connect the blood on Dalip Singh’s shirt with the deceased; the DNA evidence was also inconclusive.

Since these deficiencies created substantial doubt and the Trial Court’s view was a plausible one based on the record, the stringent standard for interference with an acquittal was not met.

The Trial Court’s acquittal was found to be reasonable, balanced and legally sustainable, not perverse or based on any material misreading of evidence.

The criminal appeal was accordingly dismissed, and the acquittal of Rahul Negi, Dalip Singh, Harish Kumar and Deepak Kumar was affirmed.

The respondents were directed to furnish personal bail bonds of ₹25,000 each, with one surety in the like amount, under Section 437-A CrPC/Section 481 BNSS, valid for six months.