Acquittal upheld where fatal blow is attributed to an absconding co-accused and ocular evidence lacks medical corroboration.

On October 12, 1999, the respondent (Allauddin) and his brother (Shahuddin) allegedly entered the complainant’s house while chasing one Yakubbhai over a prior grudge

Shahuddin allegedly struck the complainant’s father, Hamidkhan, with a spade, causing fatal injuries

The respondent, Allauddin, was alleged to have struck the complainant’s mother with an axe

While Shahuddin remained absconding, Allauddin faced trial and was acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara on November 4, 2003

The State appealed this acquittal under Section 378 of the CrPC

1. Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the respondent despite the presence of injured eyewitnesses

2. Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the respondent beyond a reasonable doubt in light of material contradictions and absence of medical corroboration

The court applied the prosecution’s burden of proof under the Indian Penal Code (Sections 302, 307, 452, etc.) and the appellate standards for acquittal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

It relied on the double presumption of innocence reinforced by an acquittal, as established in Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar [(2022) 3 SCC 471] and H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of Karnataka [(2023) 9 SCC 581], which dictate that an appellate court should not disturb an acquittal if the trial court's view is a "possible view" based on evidence

The High Court found that the prosecution's case against the respondent was severely undermined by "vast contradictions" among witnesses

While medical evidence confirmed the deceased died from a spade blow, that act was attributed solely to the absconding accused, Shahuddin

Regarding the respondent (Allauddin), the injured mother (Jubedabibi) contradicted her own police statement and the complainant's testimony by claiming she was merely "slapped" rather than struck with an axe

Furthermore, the prosecution failed to produce any medical certificate or doctor's testimony to prove the alleged head injury to the mother

The Investigating Officer admitted that the fatal injury was delivered only by the absconding brother

Consequently, the court held that the trial court's decision to discard unreliable oral evidence was a reasonable and plausible conclusion

The High Court affirmed that in an appeal against acquittal, the court will not interfere unless the findings are perverse or impossible. The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of acquittal dated November 4, 2003, was confirmed