Acquittal cannot be disturbed where the trial court’s view is a reasonable one.

The complainant, Sabbir Saiyad Mahamad Alvi Saiyad, alleged that on 24 December 2009, while supervising road-construction and pole-laying work near Veraval, the respondents approached him in a car and objected to his involvement in the work.

It was alleged that Sarfaraj assaulted him with an iron pipe, Imran kicked and punched him, and Mohsin carried a sword.

An FIR was registered at Veraval Police Station for offences under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act; a charge-sheet followed and the case was tried as Sessions Case No. 53 of 2010.

The trial court acquitted all accused on 24 September 2014, leading the State to file the present appeal under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Whether the trial court was justified in acquitting the respondents of the offences under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

Whether the trial court properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence led by the prosecution.

Whether the impugned judgment of acquittal suffered from any illegality, irregularity or perversity warranting appellate interference.

The Court applied Sections 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, requiring the prosecution to prove the constituent ingredients of each offence beyond reasonable doubt.

In an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC, an appellate court has full power to review and reappreciate the evidence, but must recognize the double presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and should not interfere where two reasonable views are possible.

The Court relied principally on Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415, as reaffirmed in Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2022) 3 SCC 471, Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 8 SCC 149, and Ramesh v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 9 SCC 169.

The Court found that the prosecution evidence did not reliably connect the respondents with the alleged offences.

The case arose against the background of a cross-case and an alleged free fight in which Respondent No. 3 had sustained injuries.

The complainant and PW-9 did not support the prosecution case, while PW-10, the alleged eyewitness who purportedly intervened, also failed to support it.

Further, despite alleging an assault involving a sword, kicks and fists, the complainant neither sought medical treatment nor produced a medical certificate.

In these circumstances, the prosecution failed to establish the alleged assault, abuse, criminal intimidation, common intention or unlawful assembly-related charge beyond reasonable doubt.

Applying the heightened appellate restraint applicable to acquittals, the Court held that the trial court’s view was a reasonable one and was neither perverse nor legally infirm.

It held that the prosecution had failed to prove the offences under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act beyond reasonable doubt, and that the trial court had rightly acquitted the accused.

The State’s appeal was dismissed, the order of acquittal dated 24 September 2014 was confirmed, the bail bonds were cancelled, and the record and proceedings were directed to be returned to the trial court.