A possible acquittal view cannot be reversed absent perversity or proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The prosecution alleged that the respondent, a government surveyor, demanded and accepted ₹200 from the complainant for issuing an Akarband and Utaar Tippani relating to land in Survey No. 171, and separately demanded ₹2,500 concerning a survey report for Survey No. 208/1.

Following a Lokayukta trap, he was charged under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d), read with Section 13(2), of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The trial court acquitted him, finding the prosecution evidence insufficient and giving him the benefit of doubt.

The State appealed against the acquittal.

Whether the State had established grounds to interfere with the trial court’s acquittal and allow the appeal

Whether the evidence sufficiently established the alleged demand and acceptance of a bribe by the respondent

The respondent was charged under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d), read with Section 13(2), of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; the prosecution also relied on the presumption under Section 20.

In an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellate court may reappreciate the evidence, but must respect the reinforced presumption of innocence. It should not reverse an acquittal where the trial court’s view is a reasonable one; interference is warranted where the acquittal is perverse, rests on a material misreading or omission of evidence, or where guilt is the only reasonable conclusion.

The Court cited Constable 907 Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, (2025) 5 SCC 433; Babu Sahebgouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 8 SCC 149; Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415; and H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581.

The Court found significant gaps and inconsistencies in the prosecution case.

Relevant revenue records, the alleged Forest Officer’s order, and the survey notice and report were not produced; the complaint also did not clearly state when the ₹200 demand was made, while the complainant’s evidence questioned the connection between the parties and Survey No. 171.

On the trap, material witnesses gave evidence supporting the defence that the accused’s hands were washed only after he produced the money, and their accounts differed on the conversation accompanying the payment.

These circumstances left demand and voluntary acceptance in doubt.

The Court therefore found no legal or factual error in the trial court’s assessment and concluded that its acquittal was a possible view on the evidence.

Finding no basis to disturb the trial court’s acquittal, it dismissed the appeal.