An acquittal cannot be disturbed where the trial court’s view is plausible and not perverse.

The appellant, the de facto complainant, alleged that respondents 2–5 attacked him and his brothers following a land dispute and humiliated them on account of their caste.

The prosecution case was that the assault involved wooden logs, knives and bricks; the appellant and his brothers testified as P.Ws. 1–4

The trial court acquitted the accused, finding that the prosecution witnesses’ injuries were not corroborated by the medical evidence and that injuries sustained by two accused had not been explained

The appellant appealed under Section 372 Cr.P.C. The State did not file an appeal

Whether the trial court’s acquittal of respondents 2–5 was perverse or otherwise warranted appellate interference

Whether the prosecution evidence was sufficient to establish the alleged assault and caste-based offences, notwithstanding the inconsistencies and evidentiary deficiencies identified by the trial court

The appeal was brought under Section 372 Cr.P.C. against an acquittal.

The Court applied the principle that an appellate court will not ordinarily interfere with an acquittal unless the trial court’s findings are perverse; where the trial court’s view is plausible, the acquittal should be sustained

The charges included offences under Sections 324, 323, 342 and 506(ii) IPC, read where applicable with Section 34 IPC, and offences under Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, as amended

The Court found material inconsistencies between the prosecution witnesses’ accounts and their earlier statements to the doctor, including the report that 20 persons had attacked them.

The medical evidence disclosed no external injuries on most of the witnesses, apart from small abrasions on P.Ws. 3 and 4.

Further, the prosecution did not explain the injuries recorded on A1 and A2, and the trial court had identified contradictions among P.Ws. 1–4 concerning the occurrence and weapons used

In light of these deficiencies, the Court held that the trial court’s decision to disbelieve the witnesses was a plausible view, not a perverse one

Finding no perversity in the trial court’s reasoned acquittal, it confirmed the judgment acquitting respondents 2–5 and dismissed the criminal appeal