Acquittal cannot be disturbed where the trial court’s view is reasonable and plausible.

The prosecution alleged that, on 6 October 2005, Ajay Gupta was attacked with sharp-edged weapons by members of a rival group and later died from his injuries.

The accused were charged under Sections 302, 147, 148 and 149 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC), and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act.

The prosecution relied principally on alleged eyewitnesses and the recovery of a Toka.

The eyewitnesses did not consistently support the prosecution, and the recovery witness denied that a disclosure or recovery had occurred.

The Trial Court acquitted the accused.

The State appealed, contending that the ocular, medical and circumstantial evidence established their involvement.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the respondents caused the injuries resulting in Ajay Gupta’s death.

Whether the Trial Court’s acquittal warranted interference in an appeal against acquittal.

The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt through cogent and reliable evidence; the accused are entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt, and weaknesses in the defence cannot cure deficiencies in the prosecution case.

A hostile witness’s testimony is not to be rejected in its entirety; the court may rely on portions found credible and supported by other evidence.

Motive, even if established, cannot substitute for substantive evidence identifying the accused, and may also support a possibility of false implication.

Under Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415, an appellate court may reappreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal, but the acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence; where two reasonable views are possible, the acquittal should not be disturbed.

The Court accepted that the post-mortem evidence established a homicidal death, but held that it did not identify the assailants.

The alleged eyewitnesses gave inconsistent accounts or resiled from the prosecution version; their statements were recorded four days after the occurrence without satisfactory explanation, and their conduct did not support their claimed presence as eyewitnesses.

The alleged weapon recovery was not reliably proved, was from an open and accessible place, and was unsupported by blood evidence; the prosecution also failed to reconcile the recovery account with the evidence that the weapon had been thrown into a drain.

Neither the alleged motive nor the remaining evidence cured these deficiencies.

Applying the principles governing appeals against acquittal, the Court found the Trial Court’s view reasonable and supported by the record.

It dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal dated 26 April 2010; it further directed that, upon apprehension of the absconding accused, the file be placed before the Trial Court for further proceedings.