Acquittal upheld due to uncorroborated recovery and unexplained three-year delay in registering the FIR.

The State of Chhattisgarh filed an acquittal appeal against the judgment dated 30.01.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, which acquitted four respondents of charges involving Naxalite activities and possession of illegal arms

The prosecution alleged that in July 2007, based on the memorandum statements of accused Subhash, the police recovered rifles, guns, cartridges, and explosives from a forest area

Although the alleged recoveries occurred in 2007, the FIR was not registered until 04.04.2010

The respondents were charged under Sections 25(A) and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Section 8 of the Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005, and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967

1. Whether the trial court's judgment of acquittal was perverse or suffered from a grave error in the appreciation of evidence regarding the recovery of arms and explosives

2. Whether the prosecution established a clear and cogent link between the accused and the seized articles beyond a reasonable doubt

3. Whether the appellate court is justified in reversing an acquittal where the trial court’s view is a "plausible" or "possible" one

The Court applied the scope of appellate interference in acquittals under Section 378 of the CrPC

It relied on Jafarudheen and others v. State of Kerala (2022) 8 SCC 440, which held that an order of acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence and should only be disturbed via thorough scrutiny of accepted legal parameters

It further cited Mallappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2024), establishing that if two views are possible, the one favoring the accused must be followed, and reversal requires a demonstration of illegality, perversity, or error of law

The Court determined that the prosecution’s case rested on weak and uncorroborated evidence.

First, the testimony of the Station House Officer (PW-2) lacked specific details regarding the manner and location of recovery in an open forest, and no spot map was prepared

Second, independent seizure witnesses (PW-8 and PW-1) turned hostile or provided inconsistent statements, with PW-8 admitting his signatures were taken at the police station for multiple cases

Third, the prosecution failed to prove that the seized articles were properly sealed or preserved, and the articles themselves were never produced before the trial court

Finally, the Court found the three-year delay in lodging the FIR (from 2007 to 2010) to be unsatisfactorily explained and fatal to the prosecution's credibility

Applying the principles from Mallappa, the Court found no perversity in the trial court's conclusion that the link between the accused and the contraband was not established

Finding no patent illegality, the Court declined to interfere with the acquittal

The appeal was dismissed at the admission stage