A possible view supporting acquittal cannot be displaced merely because another view is possible.

The deceased, Vijayalakshmi, was found dead by hanging.

The prosecution alleged that her brother-in-law, the accused, had subjected her to physical and mental cruelty and instigated her to commit suicide.

He was charged under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Sessions Court acquitted him on 18 July 2014.

The deceased’s father appealed under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), and the State appealed under Section 378(1) and (3) CrPC.

At trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses; several material witnesses, including the deceased’s husband, did not support the prosecution.

The trial court also considered a death note, Ex.C1.

Whether the father of the deceased and the State established grounds for appellate interference with the acquittal.

What order should follow from the Court’s determination of that issue.

The Court considered Sections 498-A and 306 IPC, concerning cruelty and abetment of suicide, and Sections 372 and 378 CrPC, governing appeals against acquittal.

Relying on 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 stated that an acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence and may be reversed only where the trial court’s view is not reasonably possible, the judgment is perverse or materially misreads or omits evidence, and the evidence permits only a conclusion of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court found no basis to displace the trial court’s assessment.

The death note did not accuse the husband or his family, or specifically attribute ill-treatment to the accused; the circumstances of its seizure also raised doubt, as the evidence indicated it was known to the Tahsildar on 31 August 2009 but the seizure mahazar recorded seizure on 1 September 2009.

Several witnesses did not support the prosecution, and the Court concluded that the evidence did not cogently establish the ingredients of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC.

Applying the restricted standard for appellate review of acquittals, it held that the trial court’s decision disclosed no legal or factual error warranting interference.

The Court dismissed both appeals, thereby leaving the acquittal intact.