A possible view supporting acquittal cannot be disturbed in revision absent perversity.

The petitioner challenged the judgment dated 11.05.2006 by which respondents/accused were acquitted of offences under Sections 457, 380, 342, 452, 427, 436, 506, 148 and 149 IPC arising from FIR No. 159 dated 24.07.1995, Police Station Division No. 6, Ludhiana.

The prosecution alleged that, on 22.07.1995, a large group of armed persons forcibly entered the petitioner’s factory, broke open its locks, removed machinery and other articles, confined workers, damaged property, and burnt documents.

A subsequent investigation by PW-23 Varinder Kumar, IPS, criticised the earlier investigation and recorded that the factory was damaged and machinery was missing.

After trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused, principally on the ground that the material prosecution witnesses had made material improvements and that the occurrence and involvement of the accused were not proved reliably.

During the pendency of the revision, the original petitioner died and was represented by her legal heir, Maninder Singh.

The prosecution must prove the guilt of each accused beyond reasonable doubt through reliable substantive evidence; a defective or one-sided investigation, or the physical existence of damage and missing property, cannot by itself establish the identity or culpability of the accused.

In a revision against acquittal under Section 401 Cr.P.C., the High Court’s jurisdiction is limited and interference is justified only where the acquittal is illegal, perverse, or otherwise unsustainable.

Relying on C.N. Shantha Kumar v. M.S. Srinivas, 2024 Law Finder (SC) 2620, and Krishnan v. M. Shanmugam, 2025 Law Finder (SC) 2424, the Court held that Section 401(3) Cr.P.C. prohibits the High Court from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction; even where wrongful acquittal is found, the permissible course may be remand for fresh consideration, not direct conviction.

The Court found that the prosecution case substantially rested on PW-11 Pritpal Kaur, whose deposition contained material improvements concerning how she learnt of the occurrence, her visit to the factory, alleged threats by Inspector Shamsher Singh, and the burning of records.

The evidence of Ranjit Singh did not provide reliable corroboration because his earlier account suggested that he learnt of the occurrence only the following morning.

PW-14 Gurpartap Singh was also found unreliable due to inconsistencies regarding police presence and the delay in recording his statement.

Further, the evidence regarding a pre-existing dispute, compromise between the parties, and removal of machinery by Maninder Singh created a reasonable alternative explanation and weakened the allegation of forcible removal by the accused.

Although PW-23’s report raised concerns about the earlier investigation and the factory was found damaged, those circumstances did not prove who caused the damage, removed the machinery, or burnt the documents.

The trial Court’s view was therefore a possible view based on material contradictions and doubts, and not a perverse conclusion warranting revisional interference.

The criminal revision petition was dismissed, the judgment of acquittal dated 11.05.2006 was affirmed, and any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.