Acquittal sustained where prosecution suppressed material facts and failed to examine available independent witnesses.

The complainant, Sanjaysinh Bharatsinh Jadeja, a bus conductor, alleged that on 06.09.2007, near Samana Village Bus Stand, the accused persons obstructed him in his official duties, caused simple hurt, used abusive language, and threatened to kill him.

Following an investigation, a charge sheet was filed under Sections 332, 323, 504, and 506(2) read with 114 of the IPC.

The trial court (Additional Sessions Judge, Khambhaliya) acquitted the respondents on 27.02.2009, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The State of Gujarat subsequently preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the CrPC.

1. Whether the trial court committed a manifest error or perversity in acquitting the accused by failing to appreciate the evidence on record.

2. Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly regarding the obstruction of a public servant and criminal intimidation.

3. Whether the appellate court should interfere with an order of acquittal when the trial court has taken a "possible view" based on the evidence.

The court primarily applied Sections 332, 323, 504, and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code regarding offences against public servants and criminal intimidation.

Procedurally, the court relied on Section 378 of the CrPC governing appeals against acquittal.

The court applied the "Double Presumption" of innocence principle from Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415, which mandates that an acquittal reinforces the initial presumption of innocence.

It further adhered to the "Possible View" doctrine from Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana AIR 1995 SC 280 and Constable 907 Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand (2025) 5 SCC 433, stating that if the trial court’s reasoning is plausible, the appellate court should not disturb the acquittal even if a different view is possible.

The State failed to produce documentary evidence, such as a waybill or duty reports, to substantiate that the complainant was discharging official duties during the incident.

Secondly, the court found the complainant’s testimony unnatural, noting that passengers are unlikely to launch a life-threatening attack merely for being asked to move to the front of the bus.

Crucially, the court noted that the accused (Mahendrabhai) had filed a cross-FIR against the conductor hours before the conductor filed the present complaint, suggesting the conductor’s FIR was a retaliatory measure.

The court also highlighted the non-examination of independent witnesses (daily commuting students) and the omission of material witnesses' names from the FIR.

Given these contradictions and the suppression of the genesis of the quarrel, the court determined that the trial court's conclusion was a "possible view" and lacked patent perversity.

The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt and that there were no substantial or compelling reasons to interfere with the trial court's findings.

The acquittal was confirmed, and the Record & Proceedings were ordered to be remitted to the trial court.