Acquittal upheld where independent witnesses turned hostile and police testimony contained material contradictions.

On February 19, 2012, police allegedly seized a country-made firearm (katta), 12 live cartridges, and manufacturing tools (drilling machine, cutter, semi-finished firearms) from the respondent.

The Trial Court convicted the respondent under Section 25(1-ka)(1-Ba) of the Arms Act, 1959, on February 26, 2016.

On appeal, the First Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh, set aside the conviction and acquitted the respondent on April 27, 2017, citing material contradictions in official testimonies and a lack of support from independent witnesses.

The State filed this petition seeking leave to appeal against that acquittal.

1. Whether the Appellate Court’s judgment of acquittal was perverse or based on a misappreciation of evidence warranting interference under Section 378 of the CrPC.

2. Whether the testimony of official witnesses (PW-1, PW-4, and PW-5) is sufficient to sustain a conviction when independent seizure witnesses (PW-2 and PW-6) have turned hostile.

The court applied Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding appeals against acquittal.

It relied on the principle of "double presumption of innocence," where an acquittal reinforces the initial presumption of innocence.

Per Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat (1996), an appellate court should only interfere if the findings are "palpably wrong" or "manifestly erroneous".

Under Ajit Savant Majagvai v. State of Karnataka (1997) and Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of W.B. (2023), if two reasonable views are possible, the view favoring the accused must be adopted, and interference is impermissible unless the trial court's view is "impossible".

The High Court observed that while official witnesses (PW-1, PW-4, PW-5) supported the seizure, the independent witnesses (PW-2, PW-6) did not support the prosecution's case.

The Appellate Court had identified material omissions and contradictions in the testimonies of the police witnesses, leading to a finding of reasonable doubt.

Applying the standards set by the Supreme Court, the High Court determined that the Appellate Court's decision was a "well-reasoned" appreciation of evidence.

Since the State failed to demonstrate any perversity or illegality in the acquittal, the court held that it could not substitute its own view for that of the lower appellate court, even if a different conclusion were possible.

The Court declined to grant leave to appeal and dismissed the MCRC, thereby upholding the judgment of acquittal passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh.