Acquittal Upheld Where Solitary Testimony of Injured Witness is Characterized by Material Contradictions and Infirmities

The State appealed against a judgment of the Sessions Judge, Nadiad, which acquitted the respondents of charges under Sections 366, 307, 506(2), 504 r/w 114 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

The prosecution alleged that on April 4, 1997, co-accused Vinod Katariya enticed the complainant, Tejalben, onto a scooter under the pretext of a police summons.

At the crime scene, Accused No. 1 allegedly demanded marriage and, upon resistance, inflicted razor injuries on her hands, neck, and nose with intent to murder.

The Trial Court acquitted the accused, citing material contradictions in the complainant’s testimony and lack of corroborative evidence.

1. Whether the solitary testimony of the injured complainant was sufficient and reliable enough to sustain a conviction despite material contradictions regarding the identity of the accused.

2. Whether the lack of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) and the prosecution's failure to establish a meeting of minds/conspiracy rendered the acquittal legally sound.

3. Whether the appellate court should interfere with an order of acquittal where the Trial Court’s view is a "possible view".

The Court applied the standards for interfering with orders of acquittal as per Section 378 of the CrPC.

It relied on the double presumption of innocence in favor of the accused as reinforced by an acquittal.

Appellate courts should not disturb an acquittal if two reasonable conclusions are possible as per Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar.

Interference is only warranted if the Trial Court’s findings are perverse or if the guilt is the only possible conclusion as per H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of Karnataka.

The Court observed that while medical evidence confirmed razor injuries, it did not independently identify the assailant.

The case rested solely on the complainant’s testimony, which was found to be "riddled with infirmities", specifically regarding the complainant's prior knowledge of the co-accused (Vinod).

Her "unnatural conduct"—leaving home at night with a stranger claiming to be a cop without family verification—further weakened her credibility.

The Court noted the fatal absence of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) for the unknown accomplices and the failure of the panchas to support the recovery of the weapon.

The prosecution failed to establish a "chain of events" or common intention beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Trial Court's view was not only a "possible view" but the only reasonable one based on the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed, the judgment of acquittal was confirmed, and the State was directed to remit the records to the lower court.