Absence of corroborative evidence from hostile eyewitnesses precludes conviction based solely on recovery of weapons in acquittal appeals.

The State of Gujarat challenged a judgment dated June 30, 2003, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhrangadhra, which acquitted the respondents of charges arising from an FIR dated November 5, 2002

The prosecution alleged that during a card game at Village Visavadi, an altercation occurred where Respondent No. 1 stabbed the deceased (Ambaram) and Respondent No. 2 stabbed a victim (Popat Jesang)

While the medical history at C.H.C. Patdi and Gandhi Hospital initially recorded the respondents as the assailants, and weapons were recovered at their instance, the key eyewitnesses—namely the complainant (the deceased's brother) and the injured victim—turned hostile during the trial

Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the respondents despite the recovery of weapons and the initial medical history

Whether the appellate court can interfere with an order of acquittal when material witnesses have turned hostile and multiple versions of the incident exist

The Court applied Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, regarding appeals against acquittal

It strictly adhered to the principles governing appellate interference established by the Supreme Court in Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka (2024) 8 SCC 149, which mandate that an acquittal should only be reversed if the judgment suffers from patent perversity, misreading of evidence, or if the only reasonable view possible is one of guilt

The court also applied the principle that recovery of weapons alone, in the absence of corroborative ocular evidence, is insufficient for conviction

The High Court observed that the trial court's decision was the only plausible outcome given the evidentiary vacuum created when the complainant and the injured victim turned hostile

The trial court correctly identified three distinct and inconsistent versions of the incident provided at different stages, creating reasonable doubt as to whether the respondents committed the act

Although weapons were recovered at the instance of the accused, the Court reasoned that such recovery cannot form the sole basis for conviction when the substantive ocular evidence fails

Applying the Babu Sahebagouda criteria, the Court found no patent perversity or omission of material evidence in the trial court's findings

The appeal was dismissed, and the order of acquittal was upheld

The Court further noted the passage of nearly twenty-five years since the acquittal as a factor in declining to disturb the lower court's findings