Acquittal Upheld Where Material Discrepancies and Credibility Gaps in Witness Testimony Prevent Prosecution from Proving Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt

The State appealed an acquittal order dated June 7, 2000, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panchmahal

The prosecution alleged that on November 7, 1997, the four accused, armed with iron-bound wooden sticks, assaulted the deceased (Malabhai Thavariyabhai) and two others over a dispute regarding an injured bullock

The deceased succumbed to injuries at the spot

The complainant (Genduben) filed the FIR (Exh. 15), but during the trial, she and other witnesses provided testimony that contradicted the initial prosecution story

1. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for offences under Sections 302, 326, 323, 323-34, and 504 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act beyond reasonable doubt

2. Whether the testimony of the eyewitnesses (P.W. 1 and P.W. 2) was reliable enough to overturn the trial court's order of acquittal

The court applied the Indian Penal Code, 1860, specifically Sections 302 (Murder) and 34 (Common Intention)

It strictly adhered to the principles governing appeals against acquittal as established in Mallappa Others v. State of Karnataka (2024) 3 SCC 544 and Babu Sahebgouda Rudragoudar and Others v. State of Karnataka AIR 2024 SC 2252, which mandate that an appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal if the trial court’s view is "plausible," even if a different view is possible

The High Court found significant discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence. P.W. 1 (the complainant) failed to specify the roles of the accused and admitted in cross-examination that the Sarpanch had dictated the names to the police, rendering her statement (Exh. 15) unreliable

Furthermore, it was revealed that the police arrived and took injured persons to the hospital before recording the FIR, suggesting the FIR was not the "first" information

P.W. 2 (deceased’s wife) also provided inconsistent testimony, mentioning eight assailants in cross-examination despite initially naming only four

The court reasoned that these material contradictions and the procedural lapse regarding the FIR created a "complete shadow" over the prosecution's case, justifying the trial court's decision to acquit

The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of acquittal dated June 7, 2000. All bail bonds were ordered discharged, and record proceedings were sent back to the trial court