Acquittal upheld where complainant's prior identification of accused and unidentifiable seized property vitiated prosecution's case.

On March 11, 2015, Mohd. Rahish (PW-3), a truck driver transporting 200 bags of sesame, was intercepted by four persons in a Tavera vehicle, abducted, and robbed of the truck and produce.

The police registered a case under Sections 392 and 365 of the IPC and subsequently recovered sesame, cash, and vehicles based on memorandum statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

The prosecution charged twelve respondents with various offences including dacoity (Section 395), kidnapping (365), and illegal possession of arms.

The Trial Court (Additional Sessions Judge, Banda) acquitted all respondents on December 22, 2022. The State filed this application for leave to appeal the acquittal.

1. Whether the identification of the accused by the complainant during the Test Identification Parade (TIP) was legally reliable despite allegations of prior exposure.

2. Whether the prosecution established the identity of the seized property (sesame and Innova car) as the actual objects involved in the dacoity.

3. Whether the procedural lapses in the seizure of firearms and lack of independent witnesses vitiated the charges under the Arms Act.

4. Whether the High Court should interfere with a judgment of acquittal when the Trial Court’s view is a "plausible view".

An appellate court should not overturn an acquittal if the trial court’s view is "legally plausible," even if an alternative view exists, as established in H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka (2023), Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka (2024), and Mallappa v. State of Karnataka (2024).

Section 27 of the Evidence Act regarding recoveries and Section 25(1-B)(A) of the Arms Act regarding possession of illegal weapons.

The complainant (PW-3) admitted in court that the police had shown him the accused prior to the TIP, rendering the identification parade meaningless.

The recovered sesame was a common agricultural product, and the prosecution failed to conduct any identification proceedings to link it to the stolen bags.

While a Tavera was used in the crime, an Innova was seized, and no link was established between the two.

Regarding the Arms Act, the court noted the absence of independent seizure witnesses and the failure of the Seizure Officer (PW-8) to produce Roznamcha entries or Malkhana records to prove safe custody; furthermore, the expert (PW-9) admitted the firearm was non-functional.

The court reasoned that since the Trial Court’s findings were based on a comprehensive appreciation of these evidentiary gaps, they could not be termed "perverse" or "illegal".

The application for leave to appeal (I.A. No. 5024 of 2023) was dismissed, and consequently, the criminal appeal was dismissed.