Acquittal Upheld Where Prosecution Fails to Legally Prove Supervisory Duty and Explain Inordinate Filing Delay

On April 10, 2012, an under-construction gate at Shankar Ghat, Balaghat, collapsed, killing two individuals and injuring three others.

Following a merg inquiry, the prosecution alleged that the respondent, a Forest Range Officer, was supervising the work and had failed to provide safety equipment or ensure proper supervision.

An FIR was registered in 2014—nearly two years after the incident.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balaghat, acquitted the respondent of charges under Sections 288, 338, and 304-A of the IPC on June 17, 2022.

the State appealed this acquittal.

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent was legally responsible for the supervision and safety of the construction site.

2. Whether the trial court’s judgment of acquittal was perverse or based on a misreading of evidence justifying interference by the appellate court.

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

The court relied on the principles established in H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka (2023) and Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka (2024), which dictate that an appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal if the trial court’s view is a "possible view," unless there is patent perversity or a misreading of material evidence.

The court also referenced Mallappa v. State of Karnataka (2024), emphasizing the presumption of innocence and that the benefit of two possible views must go to the accused.

The court found that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient to link the respondent to the alleged negligence. Multiple prosecution witnesses (PW-4 to PW-9) turned hostile, admitting during cross-examination that the construction was actually being executed by a private contractor named Balram, who engaged and paid the workers.

The Prosecution failed to legally prove Exhibit P/15 (the letter alleging the respondent was in charge) because they did not examine the Divisional Forest Officer who authored it.

Furthermore, the court noted an unexplained two-year delay in filing the FIR despite the merg inquiry concludes in 2012.

Applying the standard of appellate review for acquittals, the court reasoned that the trial court's findings were legally plausible and not perverse.

The High Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and the criminal appeal, affirming the acquittal.

The delay in the FIR and the testimony suggesting a third-party contractor was responsible created reasonable doubt, the benefit of which was rightly granted to the respondent.