Acquittal affirmed where material discrepancies in investigation and call records create reasonable doubt regarding incident timing.

The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed against the judgment of acquittal dated 28.05.2022 passed by the Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Katni

The prosecution alleged that on 19.11.2015, Constable Brajesh Shukla (PW-1) and Head Constable Santosh Singh went to arrest the respondent, a warrantee. The respondent allegedly resisted, pushed PW-1—causing a fracture to his thumb—and attempted to flee

The respondent was charged under Sections 333 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter public servant from his duty) and 427 of the Indian Penal Code

The Trial Court acquitted the respondent, noting serious discrepancies in the timings of the FIR, medical examination, and tower location data

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in acquitting the respondent despite the testimony of the injured police official and supporting medical evidence

2. Whether the discrepancies in investigation timings and the evidence of prior enmity were sufficient to cast reasonable doubt on the prosecution's case

The court applied Sections 333 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code regarding hurt caused to public servants and mischief

Section 378 of the CrPC regarding appeals against acquittal

The principles established in H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka and Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, which mandate that an appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal if the Trial Court’s view is a "possible view," even if an alternative view exists

preponderance of probabilities standard for the defense as per the Evidence Act

The High Court found the Trial Court's reasoning to be sound due to several fatal inconsistencies in the prosecution's narrative. Specifically, an OPD slip (Ex. D/29) was issued at 13:13 hours, yet the police only received information of the incident at 13:15 hours

tower location data (Ex. D-20) placed the victim at a different location (District Hospital) at the same time he was allegedly preparing a "Nuksani Panchnama" at the police outpost

The court observed that the MLC report (Ex. P-10) appeared to have been altered from "simple" to "grievous" hurt

evidence substantiated a prior rivalry between the respondent and an acquaintance of the victim (Rajesh Shukla), providing a potential motive for false implication

The court held that the delay of 109 days in filing the appeal was condonable, but the merit of the case favored the defense

The discrepancies regarding timing and location were significant enough to warrant the benefit of the doubt for the respondent. Final Order: Appeal dismissed