Absence of visible injuries and medical evidence of prior ailment precludes conviction for homicidal death.

The State appealed against a judgment dated 16.11.2015 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Harda, which acquitted the respondents of charges under Sections 302/34 and 374 of the IPC and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(vi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The prosecution alleged that Rakesh, a minor, died after being beaten by Ramdeen over a dispute regarding pesticide administration.

Rakesh died on 01.09.2011 shortly after being taken to a hospital; however, the body was only exhumed two months later following information from PW-5 Bholaram.

The defense relied on the testimony of DW-1 Dr. Manish Sharma, who treated Rakesh for fever and breathing trouble and noted no external injuries or signs of poisoning.

1. Whether the trial Court erred in recording a finding of acquittal despite the allegations of assault leading to death.

2. Whether there was sufficient medical and ocular evidence to establish a homicidal death caused by the accused.

The Court applied Section 378(1) of the CrPC regarding appeals against acquittal.

It relied on the principle that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that if two views are possible, the view favourable to the accused must be adopted, as established in *State of Gujarat v. Jayrajbhai Punjabhai Varu* (2016).

It further adhered to the guidelines for reversing acquittals summarized in *Mallappa & others v. State of Karnataka* (2024), which mandate that an appellate court must demonstrate a specific illegality or perversity in the trial court's decision to interfere.

The Court found the prosecution's case to be based on an "afterthought" and "false implication".

It noted that while PW-5 Bholaram claimed the deceased told him of an assault, this fact was absent from the initial reports and the statements of the father (PW-1) for two months.

Crucially, the medical testimony of DW-1 Dr. Manish Sharma—who treated Rakesh before his death—confirmed there were no injury marks or smell of pesticides, attributing the condition to a prior medical ailment and respiratory distress.

The Court determined there was no evidence of homicidal death, and the accused's act of taking the deceased to the hospital on a motorcycle contradicted the theory of foul play.

The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt as there was no evidence of homicidal death or assault.

Following the principles in *Mallappa v. State of Karnataka*, the Court concluded that the trial court's view was legally plausible and no indulgence was warranted.

The trial court record was ordered to be sent back.