An acquittal cannot be disturbed where the trial court’s view is reasonably possible.

The applicant, the original complainant, sought leave to appeal against the Sessions Court’s judgment dated 19 August 2025 acquitting the accused of offences under Sections 302, 120B, 201 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution alleged that the accused murdered the complainant’s son, moved his body to a railway track to make the death appear suicidal, and threatened his daughter.

The case rested substantially on circumstantial evidence.

The High Court noted that the daughter, described as the principal eyewitness, was declared hostile and did not support the prosecution; the prosecution also failed to establish the alleged relationship between the accused or their presence and involvement at the scene.

The complainant’s evidence did not establish the accused’s involvement.

Whether the applicant had shown grounds for leave to appeal against the acquittal, including that the trial court’s findings were perverse or otherwise unsustainable.

Whether the prosecution evidence established a complete chain of circumstances pointing to the accused’s guilt and excluding other reasonable conclusions.

The Court considered the offences charged under Sections 302, 120B, 201 and 506(2) IPC, and the application for leave under Section 419 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, as stated in the judgment.

In a circumstantial-evidence case, the circumstances relied upon must be fully established and form a complete chain pointing to guilt while excluding other reasonable hypotheses.

On an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court may review the evidence, but the acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence; where the trial court’s view is a reasonable possible view, the acquittal should not be disturbed merely because another view is possible.

Interference is warranted where, among other grounds, the judgment is perverse or materially misreads or omits evidence.

The Court relied on Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat (1996) 9 SCC 225 and the principles reproduced from Tulasareddi @ Mudakappa & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 INSC 67.

The Court found that the principal eyewitness did not support the prosecution and that the evidence did not establish the alleged relationship, the accused’s presence at the deceased’s house, or their involvement in transporting the body.

The complainant’s testimony, including matters based on hearsay, did not cure those evidentiary gaps or implicate the accused.

The circumstances therefore did not form a complete chain pointing to guilt.

The applicant also failed to demonstrate that the trial court’s assessment was perverse, contrary to the evidence, or otherwise unsustainable; the acquittal represented a possible view of the evidence.

It dismissed the application for leave and, consequentially, dismissed the captioned criminal appeal.