Acquittal stands where circumstantial evidence fails to complete the chain of guilt.

The State appealed the acquittal of nine accused by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, in a prosecution for offences under Sections 120B, 143, 144, 147, 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC

The prosecution alleged that the deceased, Hidayath, was murdered following tensions arising from his former marriage to accused No. 9 and his continued visits to see their child

The case rested on circumstantial evidence, including alleged motive, conspiracy, last-seen evidence, recoveries and blood-group evidence; there was no direct evidence connecting the accused to the murder

The State contended that the trial court had improperly assessed that evidence, while the respondents defended the acquittal

1. Whether the prosecution proved a complete chain of circumstances establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt

2. Whether the trial court’s acquittal was perverse or otherwise unsustainable so as to warrant interference in the State’s appeal

In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, each incriminating circumstance must be independently proved, and the circumstances cumulatively must form a complete chain consistent only with the accused’s guilt and inconsistent with their innocence

A last-seen circumstance, motive or recovery cannot, without sufficient connecting evidence, independently establish guilt

A discovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, must be proved in accordance with law, including proof of the information distinctly relating to the fact discovered

In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court may independently examine the evidence, but should not interfere where the trial court’s view is reasonably possible; interference is warranted where that view is perverse, impossible or wholly unsustainable

The Court found that the alleged motive provided background but did not identify the perpetrators, and that the conspiracy and last-seen evidence did not bridge the gap between the deceased being seen with the accused and their responsibility for his death

The absence of a test identification parade was relevant to assessing the identification evidence, while the alleged recoveries and blood-group correspondence did not sufficiently establish a nexus between the accused, the seized articles and the murder

Taken together, the circumstances did not complete the chain required to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt

The trial court’s acquittal was therefore a reasonably possible view, not one shown to be perverse or unsustainable

The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court’s judgment acquitting accused Nos. 1–9 was affirmed; the Registry was directed to transmit the records to the Sessions Court