Acquittal warrants no appellate interference absent an irresistible conclusion of guilt.

The prosecution arose from Dhangai P.S. Case No. 69 of 2017 concerning the alleged firing and death of Kamal Mahto on 8 September 2017.

The written information alleged that, while the informant Ramashray Singh and his son were travelling by motorcycle, the accused persons intercepted them and fired at Kamal Mahto, causing his death; the remaining accused allegedly threatened the informant with firearms.

The case was registered under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

After investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against respondent Nos. 2 to 4, and the matter proceeded to trial before the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Bhojpur.

The prosecution examined six witnesses, including the informant, the post-mortem doctor, the investigating officer and other purported eyewitnesses.

The trial court acquitted the accused, holding that there was no reliable eyewitness and that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

The appellants challenged the acquittal before the High Court.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons committed the murder of Kamal Mahto by using firearms, thereby attracting Sections 302/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act?

Whether the trial court’s acquittal was based on a proper appreciation of the evidence and warranted interference in appeal?

The Court applied Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code concerning murder committed with common intention, and Section 27 of the Arms Act concerning the use of firearms in the commission of an offence.

In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court must exercise restraint and should not interfere merely because another view of the evidence is possible; interference is justified only where the acquittal is unreasonable or the appellate court reaches an irresistible conclusion that the accused is guilty.

The Court relied on H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581, for these principles governing appeals against acquittal.

The prosecution was required to establish the accused’s identity, participation and criminal liability beyond reasonable doubt through reliable and legally admissible evidence.

The High Court found that the informant’s claim to be an eyewitness was materially contradicted by the investigating officer’s evidence.

The investigating officer stated that the informant had learnt of the occurrence through a television channel and was not present at the place of occurrence; the defence also produced a recording in which the informant made a similar statement.

The informant’s testimony contained further inconsistencies regarding his presence, alleged injuries, reporting of the occurrence, and the seizure of the motorcycle.

In particular, the investigating officer stated that no person disclosed the names of the assailants immediately after the occurrence and that the alleged witnesses were brought by the informant much later, on 29 October 2017.

The Court also noted the delay and procedural irregularities concerning registration and transmission of the FIR, as well as the absence of reliable eyewitness testimony from PW-3, PW-5 and PW-6.

Since the prosecution evidence did not establish the accused’s participation beyond reasonable doubt, the trial court’s view was found to be a possible and well-supported view of the evidence.

Applying the restrictive principles governing appeals against acquittal, the High Court found no basis for appellate interference.

It found no error in the trial court’s assessment that the informant and other prosecution witnesses were not reliable eyewitnesses.

Accordingly, the appeal against acquittal was dismissed, and the impugned judgment dated 12 March 2025 was allowed to stand.