Acquittal warrants no appellate interference where the trial court’s evidentiary view is sustainable.

The prosecution alleged that, arising from rivalry between the complainant’s family and the respondents concerning construction of a hotel, the respondents formed an unlawful assembly on 14 May 2000 and assaulted the complainant and other prosecution witnesses with dangerous weapons.

It was further alleged that the respondents trespassed into the complainant’s hotel and took away cash.

The respondents were prosecuted under Sections 147, 148, 395, 452, 324, 323, 336, 337, 427, 429, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad, Alibag acquitted all the respondents by judgment dated 8 January 2004, leading the State to file the present appeal.

The trial court considered the complainant and injured witnesses to be interested witnesses, found inadequate corroboration from medical and independent evidence, and noted material discrepancies and the possibility of tutoring in the context of existing political and personal rivalry.

Whether the trial court erred in disbelieving the evidence of the complainant and injured prosecution witnesses and in acquitting the respondents of the offences alleged under the IPC.

Whether the evidence on record rendered the acquittal judgment perverse or otherwise unsustainable so as to warrant appellate interference.

The prosecution invoked Sections 147, 148, 395, 452, 324, 323, 336, 337, 427, 429, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 IPC, concerning unlawful assembly, rioting, robbery/dacoity, house-trespass, voluntarily causing hurt, acts endangering life or personal safety, mischief, criminal intimidation and common-object liability.

The Court applied the appellate principle that an acquittal should not be disturbed where the trial court’s assessment of evidence is not perverse and the view adopted is a reasonably possible or sustainable view on the evidence.

The Court also accepted the evidentiary importance of corroboration, material discrepancies, and the assessment of interested or partisan testimony in determining whether the prosecution had established the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

The High Court found that the trial court had reasonably evaluated the testimony of the complainant and injured witnesses against the medical evidence and the evidence of independent witnesses.

The alleged discrepancies between the complainant’s immediate complaint and his testimony in court, together with the substantially similar testimony of other prosecution witnesses, justified the trial court’s concern regarding reliability and possible tutoring.

The Court also considered the admitted rivalry between the parties, including disputes relating to construction, local political control and the removal of the complainant’s father from the post of Sarpanch, as circumstances capable of furnishing a motive for false implication.

Since the trial court’s conclusion that the prosecution evidence lacked sufficient corroboration was not shown to be perverse, and its view was not otherwise unsustainable, the High Court declined to reappreciate the evidence in favour of the State.

It held that the trial court had given valid and sustainable reasons for disbelieving the prosecution evidence and acquitting the respondents, and that no ground for appellate interference was made out.

The State’s appeal was accordingly dismissed, and the acquittal of Respondent Nos. 1 to 21 was affirmed.