Acquittal sustained where star eye-witnesses and injured family members turned hostile and failed to identify accused.

The State appealed against the judgment dated 24.12.1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gondal, which acquitted the respondents of charges under Sections 302, 307, and other provisions of the IPC.

According to the prosecution, on 23.08.1998, following a dispute over fetching grass, an unlawful assembly attacked the complainant's house at 22:00 hours with sticks, pipes, and hockey sticks, causing severe injuries to the complainant’s family and resulting in the death of her father, Nathabhai Rajabhai Rabari.

The prosecution examined 62 witnesses; however, the trial court acquitted all 39 original accused (several of whom expired during the appeal pendency) due to a lack of evidence regarding identity and common object.

1. Whether the trial court committed a manifest error or perversity by acquitting the accused despite medical evidence and the gravity of the charges.

2. Whether the prosecution established the identity of the accused and their participation in an unlawful assembly beyond reasonable doubt given that key eye-witnesses turned hostile.

3. Whether the appellate court should interfere with a judgment of acquittal when two reasonable views are possible.

The Court primarily applied Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, governing appeals against acquittal.

It relied on the "double presumption" of innocence principle, where the initial presumption is strengthened by the trial court's acquittal.

The Court cited Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka (2024) and Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) to establish that interference is only warranted if the judgment is patently perverse, based on a misreading of evidence, or if no two views are possible.

Additionally, it relied on State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy (1981) regarding the appellate court's duty when in agreement with the trial court.

The Court observed that the prosecution’s case rested heavily on the testimony of injured eye-witnesses, including the de facto complainant (PW-14), the sons of the deceased (PW-15, PW-16), and the widow of the deceased (PW-17), all of whom turned hostile and failed to identify the accused persons.

Furthermore, independent neighbors (PW-4, PW-7 to PW-10) and most panch witnesses also turned hostile, rendering the Test Identification Parade (TIP) Panchnama unproven.

The Court reasoned that while medical evidence existed, it merely had corroborative value and could not substitute for the failure of primary witnesses to identify the assailants or establish the unlawful assembly.

Applying the standard that an appellate court should not disturb an acquittal if two reasonable views are possible, the High Court found no perversity in the trial court's decision to grant the benefit of the doubt to the respondents.

The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal order of the trial court dated 24.12.1999 was confirmed. The bail bonds were cancelled, and the sureties discharged.