An acquittal based on a reasonable view of material contradictions warrants no appellate interference.

The prosecution alleged that on 14 July 2018, a police party apprehended Sandeep near Sadhupul and recovered 1 kg of charas from a carry bag in his possession. He was charged under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

The Special Judge acquitted Sandeep, and the State appealed against that acquittal.

Whether the Trial Court’s acquittal rested on a reasonable, possible view of the evidence or was perverse so as to warrant appellate interference

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Sandeep was in conscious possession of charas, given the discrepancies in the witness testimony and the independent witness’s failure to support the recovery

Section 20 of the NDPS Act prescribes punishment for the relevant cannabis-related offence; the prosecution must prove the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court may reappraise the evidence but must give weight to the strengthened presumption of innocence and the Trial Court’s assessment. If the Trial Court’s view is reasonably possible, acquittal cannot be reversed merely because another view is available; interference is warranted where the acquittal is perverse, rests on a misreading or omission of material evidence, or no reasonable view other than guilt is possible.

Applying the acquittal-appeal standard, the Court found that the Trial Court’s assessment was a possible view of the evidence.

The independent witness did not corroborate the prosecution’s account of the recovery and seizure, while the police witnesses gave materially inconsistent accounts of their movements, the alleged apprehension, and related timings. The discrepancies concerning the rukka and FIR further weakened the prosecution’s account. The Court therefore concluded that the evidence did not establish the alleged possession beyond reasonable doubt and that the Trial Court’s acquittal was not perverse or otherwise fit for appellate interference.

The appeal was dismissed, leaving the Trial Court’s acquittal of Sandeep under Section 20 of the NDPS Act undisturbed. The Court also directed the appellant to furnish bail bonds under Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, within four weeks, effective for six months.