Absence of Medical Corroboration for Alleged Weapon Injuries and Adverse Testimony of Companion Justify Acquittal.

The State appealed against the judgment dated 21.12.2015 passed by the II ASJ, Sidhi, which acquitted the accused of charges under Sections 147, 148, 294, 341, and 307 of the IPC.

The complainant, Buddhsen Mishra (PW-1), alleged that on 19.10.2006, the accused persons assaulted him with a sword, iron rod, and other weapons due to a land dispute.

However, the person accompanying the complainant, Dalbir Kol (PW-2), turned hostile, stating the injuries resulted from a motorcycle accident caused by a dust storm rather than an assault.

Medical evidence further contradicted the complainant's testimony regarding the nature of the weapons used.

1. Whether the ocular testimony of the injured witness (PW-1) was sufficient to reverse the acquittal despite contradictions with medical evidence and other witness statements.

2. Whether the trial court's decision to grant the benefit of doubt to the accused was perverse or legally unsustainable.

The court applied the principle that "enmity is a double-edged weapon," serving as both a motive and a reason for potential false implication, as established in Aslam @ Imran v. State of M.P.

It relied on State of Gujarat v. Jayrajbhai Punjabhai Varu regarding the requirement to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the rule that if two views are possible, the view favorable to the accused must be adopted.

Additionally, it cited Mallappa & others v. State of Karnataka, summarizing that an appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal unless there is patent illegality or perversity.

The Court found that the testimony of the injured witness (PW-1) lacked corroboration.

PW-2, the only other eye-witness present, contradicted PW-1 by attributing the injuries to a road accident.

Crucially, Dr. Amar Singh (PW-10) testified that the injuries were lacerations inconsistent with sharp-edged weapons like a sword but consistent with a fall from a motorcycle.

The Court reasoned that since the medical evidence directly refuted the weapon-specific allegations of PW-1 and supported the "accident" theory proposed by PW-2, the prosecution failed to bridge the gap between suspicion and proof.

Given the admitted land enmity, the possibility of false implication could not be ruled out.

The Court held that the trial court’s view was a "legally plausible view" based on the material contradictions between oral and medical evidence.

It concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and that there was no perversity in the trial court's judgment requiring appellate interference.