Acquittal stands where inconsistent, uncorroborated prosecution evidence fails to prove guilt.

The prosecution alleged that on 25 November 2007, the respondent, driving a KSRTC bus, struck and damaged a closed railway level-crossing barrier at Gate No. 208, causing damage stated to be approximately ₹30,000.

A charge-sheet was filed for an offence under Section 160(2) of the Railways Act, 2003.

The trial court acquitted the respondent in C.C. No. 34/2016 (old No. 16/2008), and the State appealed against that acquittal under Section 378(1) and (3) of the CrPC.

The High Court recorded that PW1’s examination-in-chief was not tested by cross-examination because he had died, and noted evidentiary weaknesses concerning the other prosecution witnesses.

Whether the State had established grounds for the High Court to interfere with the trial court’s judgment of acquittal

The prosecution charged the respondent under Section 160(2) of the Railways Act, 2003, and the appeal was brought under Section 378(1) and (3) of the CrPC.

The Court assessed whether the evidence on record justified disturbing the acquittal.

It cited no precedent or further legal test for appellate interference.

The Court found that PW1’s evidence had not been subjected to cross-examination because he had died before it could take place.

It also considered the testimony concerning the gate closure and the bus’s alleged impact, the evidence of the investigating officer and other witnesses, and the trial court’s finding that the prosecution evidence was inconsistent and insufficiently corroborative.

On its review of the record, the High Court found no legal or factual error warranting interference with the acquittal.

The appeal was dismissed.