A reasonable appellate acquittal cannot be disturbed merely because another view is possible.

The accused—Lal Singh, his son Anup Kumar and wife Kusum Lata—were alleged to have assaulted Mahant Ram after he objected to Lal Singh’s construction of a septic tank on joint land.

When the informant, Surjit Singh, intervened, the accused allegedly assaulted him, and Anup Kumar allegedly struck him on the face with a stone, causing dental injuries.

The police registered a case under Sections 325, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC.

Medical examination found a wounded empty tooth socket and declared the dental injury grievous, although the medical evidence did not record bleeding, facial injury or fracture of the alveolar margin.

The Trial Court convicted the accused under Sections 325, 323 and 506 IPC and imposed concurrent sentences of six months, one month and two months’ imprisonment respectively, along with fines.

On appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge set aside the conviction and acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution evidence suffered from material contradictions, the alleged stone blow was not supported by corresponding facial injury, and the evidence of interested witnesses required corroboration.

The informant thereafter filed the present appeal against acquittal.

Whether the appellate court’s acquittal of the accused was perverse, manifestly illegal, wholly unsustainable or otherwise warranted interference in an appeal against acquittal.

Whether the prosecution evidence, particularly the testimony alleging a stone blow causing grievous dental injury, was sufficiently corroborated by the medical evidence.

Whether the testimony of the informant and related witnesses could safely be relied upon despite the admitted land disputes and absence of corroboration from independent witnesses.

The Court applied Sections 325, 323, 506 and 34 IPC concerning grievous hurt, voluntarily causing hurt, criminal intimidation and acts done in furtherance of common intention.

In an appeal against acquittal, the Court relied on Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1373, Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1973) 2 SCC 808, Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 10 SCC 450, Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415, and Mrinal Das v. State of Tripura, (2011) 9 SCC 479, for the principles that an acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence; interference is justified only where the acquittal is perverse, manifestly illegal or wholly unsustainable; and where two reasonable views are possible, the view favourable to the accused must prevail.

The Court also relied on medical jurisprudence concerning alleged traumatic tooth loss, under which mechanical dental injury would ordinarily be expected to produce signs such as bleeding, laceration, gum or lip injury, or fracture of the alveolar margin.

The Court held that the alleged stone blow and resulting grievous dental injury were not satisfactorily corroborated by the medical evidence.

The examining doctor found no bleeding from the incisors or external chest injury, while the dental surgeon recorded a wounded empty socket and poor oral hygiene but admitted that the teeth were decayed.

There was no recorded bleeding, gum or cheek injury, or alveolar-margin fracture—features relevant to establishing recent traumatic tooth loss.

The Court further noted that one eyewitness, Durga Dass, did not support the prosecution version, and that Bhag Dei and Mahant Ram admitted the existence of pending land disputes and other cases between the parties.

Although four or five persons were allegedly present, none was examined as an independent witness.

In these circumstances, the appellate court was entitled to scrutinise the testimony of the informant and related witnesses with caution.

Since the appellate court’s view was a reasonable view of the evidence, the stringent principles governing interference with acquittal were not satisfied.

It held that the acquittal was a reasonable and legally sustainable view, that the medical evidence did not corroborate the alleged stone assault or grievous dental injury, and that the interested witness testimony, viewed against the background of strained relations and lack of independent corroboration, created reasonable doubt.

The appeal was dismissed, the acquittal of respondents/accused was maintained, and any pending applications were disposed of.

The respondents were directed under Section 437-A CrPC, corresponding to Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to furnish personal bonds of ₹50,000 each with one surety of the like amount, effective for six months.