Acquittal cannot be reversed merely because another view of the evidence is possible.

Moti Ram (A1) and Man Singh (A2) were tried for murdering Beli Ram on 25 April 2012, allegedly in furtherance of their common intention under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The prosecution alleged that, during a religious gathering, A2 threatened persons singing devotional songs, quarrelled with Beli Ram, and that both accused dragged him outside, where A1 stabbed him with a knife; Beli Ram subsequently died from his injuries

The Sessions Court convicted both accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment with a fine. Moti Ram alone appealed, and the Himachal Pradesh High Court acquitted him after finding material inconsistencies in the eyewitness evidence and doubts concerning the seized knife. The State challenged the acquittal before the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution

Whether the High Court erred in acquitting Moti Ram by disbelieving or extending the benefit of doubt on account of inconsistencies in the eyewitness testimony

Whether the High Court’s finding that the prosecution failed to establish the identity and evidentiary reliability of the alleged knife constituted a possible and legally sustainable view

Whether the Supreme Court should interfere, under Article 136, with the High Court’s judgment of acquittal

The Court applied Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalises murder committed by persons acting pursuant to a common intention

It reiterated the settled appellate principle that, in an appeal against acquittal, interference is justified only where the acquittal is perverse, based on material not on record, or produces a wholly untenable conclusion; where the appellate court has reasonably reappreciated the evidence and extended the benefit of doubt, interference is unwarranted merely because another view is possible

An acquittal further strengthens the presumption of innocence

The Court also exercised restraint under Article 136 of the Constitution in reviewing the impugned acquittal

The Supreme Court found the High Court’s view to be reasonably supported by the record. The eyewitnesses materially differed on the circumstances of the assault: PW1 attributed the threats principally to A2 and stated that A1 held the knife in his right hand, whereas PW2 stated that A1 held it in his left hand and additionally claimed that both accused dragged Beli Ram outside, an assertion absent from PW1’s testimony

The witnesses also referred to Raj Kumar’s presence, but he was not examined, and no other person from the gathering intervened despite the presence of approximately 10–15 persons

Further, the Investigating Officer stated that the knife was seized in a straight condition, while the weapon produced before the court was bent; no explanation was provided, and no fingerprints were found or investigated

These circumstances created a reasonable doubt regarding Moti Ram’s participation and the identity of the weapon. Since the High Court’s assessment was a possible view and was not perverse, the enhanced presumption of innocence following acquittal barred appellate interference

The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of acquittal was left undisturbed