Acquittal upheld where contradictory evidence and non-examination of independent witnesses created reasonable doubt.

The prosecution alleged that on 7 March 2012 at approximately 10:15 p.m., the respondents abused the complainant, threatened to kill him, and assaulted the complainant and other persons with sticks, causing injuries to the head and shoulder.

The prosecution relied principally on the testimony of the injured witnesses Jaideep Patel, Sanjay, Rajendra Patel and Satyendra Patel, supported by the medical evidence of Dr. Vijay Ravi.

The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amarpatan, District Satna, acquitted the respondents in Criminal Case No. 583/2012 of offences under Sections 323, 323/34, 325, 325/34, 506 and 294 of the IPC by judgment dated 2 November 2017.

The State thereafter filed the present petition under Section 378(3) CrPC seeking leave to appeal against the acquittal.

Whether the State should be granted leave under Section 378(3) CrPC to appeal against the respondents’ acquittal.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the respondents assaulted the complainant and injured witnesses and committed offences under Sections 323, 325, 506 and 294 of the IPC.

Whether the Trial Court’s appreciation of the evidence and grant of benefit of doubt disclosed any perversity or illegality warranting interference by the High Court.

The Court applied Section 378(3) CrPC, under which leave of the High Court is required before the State can pursue an appeal against an acquittal.

The prosecution was required to establish the ingredients of Sections 323 and 325 IPC concerning voluntarily causing hurt and grievous hurt, Section 506 IPC concerning criminal intimidation, and Section 294 IPC concerning obscene acts or words in a public place, beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court also applied the settled principle that an acquittal should not be interfered with unless the findings of the Trial Court are perverse, illegal, or unsupported by the evidence.

The High Court found that the Trial Court had properly assessed the evidence and reasonably concluded that the prosecution case was doubtful.

The prosecution witnesses had allegedly suppressed material facts concerning an earlier dispute with accused Pintu, and the evidence disclosed prior enmity between the parties.

Although 100–200 villagers were stated to have been present at the occurrence, none was identified or examined, creating a possibility of false implication.

The Court further held that the prosecution failed to establish the respondents’ presence at the place of occurrence and failed to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that they had assaulted the complainant or caused the alleged injuries.

In these circumstances, the Trial Court’s decision to extend the benefit of doubt was neither perverse nor illegal.

Finding no perversity or illegality in the acquittal judgment dated 2 November 2017, the Court dismissed the State’s application for leave to appeal under Section 378(3) CrPC and consequently dismissed Misc. Criminal Case No. 5278 of 2018.