Acquittal upheld where material contradictions and unexplained darkness raised reasonable doubt.

The State alleged that on 6 June 2009, the accused formed an unlawful assembly in Bommanahalli, assaulted members of a Scheduled Caste community, and damaged a community-hall signboard and a photograph of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar

The accused faced charges under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 506, 427 and 295A of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

The Sessions Court acquitted accused 1, 3–12, 14–24 and 26–29; accused 2 was dealt with in a separate case, and proceedings against accused 25 had abated on his death

The State appealed under Section 378 CrPC, contending that the trial court had improperly rejected the prosecution evidence

Whether the trial court erred in assessing the prosecution evidence and acquitting the respondents

Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish the respondents’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt and warrant reversal of the acquittal

The appeal was brought under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure

The charged offences were under the identified provisions of the IPC and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

The Court applied the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt and the corresponding principle that unresolved doubt benefits the accused, as reflected in its adoption of the trial court’s reasoning

The High Court found no legal or factual error in the trial court’s assessment.

The trial court had noted that the witnesses described darkness and a village-wide power outage from about 6:45 p.m., but did not explain how they could observe the incident or identify the assailants

It also relied on material contradictions in the eyewitness evidence; PW4 had turned hostile and PW7 had partly turned hostile

On re-examination of the record, the High Court saw no basis to disturb the resulting reasonable doubt

It dismissed the appeal, leaving the acquittal undisturbed