Acquittal cannot be disturbed where the trial court’s view is reasonable and prosecution evidence remains unproved.

The State challenged the acquittal of six accused by the Additional Sessions Judge, Keshod, in Sessions Case No. 05 of 2022. The prosecution alleged that the victim’s brother-in-law repeatedly raped her; that other accused also subjected her to sexual assault; that her husband assaulted her and that, on 30 June 2017, he forcibly stitched her private parts with a needle and thread. Allegations under Sections 376(D), 498(A), 326, 323, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC were registered and investigated

The trial court acquitted all accused under Section 235(1) of the CrPC, principally extending the benefit of doubt. The State contended that the trial court had failed to properly appreciate the victim’s FIR and Section 164 CrPC statement, medical evidence, seizure evidence and the testimony of the investigating officers

Before the High Court, the victim did not support the prosecution case and denied or failed to recall material allegations. She was declared hostile, and the prosecution’s cross-examination did not yield supporting evidence

The panch witnesses formally identified their signatures on seizure panchnamas but did not testify about the collection, sealing, forwarding or contents of the samples. The investigating officers mainly proved the steps taken during investigation, but the prosecution lacked substantive supporting evidence connecting the accused with the alleged offences

Whether the State established, through legally admissible and reliable evidence, that the accused committed the offences under Sections 376(D), 498(A), 326, 323, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC?

Whether the victim’s FIR and statement under Section 164 CrPC, medical material, seizure panchnamas and investigation evidence could sustain the prosecution case despite the victim and material witnesses not supporting it in court?

Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court’s order of acquittal in an appeal by the State?

The prosecution was required to prove the alleged offences under Sections 376(D), 498(A), 326, 323, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC beyond reasonable doubt

A statement under Section 164 CrPC is not substantive evidence and cannot, by itself, be used to prove the truth of its contents; it may be relevant only in accordance with the rules governing corroboration and contradiction

A panchnama is not substantively proved merely because a panch witness identifies his signature; the witness must speak to the underlying facts and circumstances recorded in it

Evidence of investigating officers and documents collected during investigation cannot substitute for substantive evidence proving the commission of the offence

On an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court may reappreciate the evidence, but must respect the strengthened presumption of innocence and should not interfere where the trial court’s view is reasonably possible. Interference is justified only where the acquittal is perverse, rests on a material misreading or omission of evidence, or where guilt is the only possible conclusion. The Court applied the principles in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, as reiterated in Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka and Tulasareddi @ Mudakappa v. State of Karnataka

The High Court held that the victim, the principal witness, did not support the allegations of rape, cruelty, assault or forcible stitching in her deposition and that the prosecution’s cross-examination did not cure the evidentiary deficiency

Her FIR and Section 164 statement could not independently establish guilt because they were not substantive evidence

The panch witnesses proved only their signatures and not the actual seizure or handling of the samples, rendering the relevant panchnamas substantively unproved

The evidence of the investigating officers established, at most, the steps taken during investigation and could not replace direct or otherwise legally sufficient proof of the alleged offences

In these circumstances, the trial court’s conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt was a possible and reasonable view, not a perverse one. The principles governing appellate restraint in acquittal appeals therefore barred interference

The State’s appeal against acquittal was dismissed, the judgment and order dated 29 January 2026 in Sessions Case No. 05 of 2022 was confirmed, and the record and proceedings were directed to be remitted to the concerned court