A plausible trial-court view of the evidence bars appellate reversal of acquittal.

The State appealed the Sessions Court’s acquittal of five accused charged under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120-B and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution alleged that the accused conspired to murder Muniraju because of his relationship with the daughter of accused No. 1, and that they killed him on 6 November 2011.

The prosecution relied principally on circumstantial evidence, including alleged last-seen evidence, motive and recovery of weapons.

The trial court found the evidence unreliable and acquitted the accused on 12 April 2018.

The State challenged that acquittal under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Whether the State had established a ground to interfere with the trial court’s judgment of acquittal.

Whether the evidence on record proved the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt so as to displace the acquittal.

The appeal was considered under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Relying on Constable 907 Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, Babu Sahebgouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka and H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka, the Court reiterated that an appellate court may reappreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal, but must respect the reinforced presumption of innocence.

It may reverse an acquittal only where the trial court’s view is not a plausible one, the judgment is perverse or materially overlooks evidence, and the evidence permits no reasonable conclusion other than guilt.

The prosecution bore the burden of proving the charged offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120-B and 302 read with Section 149 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court accepted that the medical and inquest evidence established Muniraju’s homicidal death, but held that this did not establish the accused’s participation.

The alleged last-seen witnesses, PWs 1 and 2, turned hostile; the evidence of other material witnesses contained contradictions and omissions, and the alleged recovery of weapons was also found doubtful.

On independently reappraising the record, the Court concluded that the trial court had reasonably assessed these weaknesses and that its acquittal was a plausible view, not one warranting appellate interference.

It found no factual or legal error in the trial court’s assessment and dismissed the appeal, leaving the acquittal in force.