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

The prosecution alleged that on 31 March 2013, the respondents assaulted the complainant and his family members, caused injuries, threatened them, and used caste-based abuse against the complainant, who belonged to a Scheduled Caste.

Charges were brought under Sections 323, 324, 354, 504 and 506 read with Sections 34 and 149 of the IPC, and provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The trial court acquitted the accused.

The State appealed under Section 378(1) and (3) CrPC, challenging that acquittal.

Whether the State had established grounds to interfere with the trial court’s judgment of acquittal.

Whether the evidence proved the charged IPC and SC/ST Act offences beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court applied the principles governing appeals against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC: an appellate court may reappraise the evidence, but the acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence; if the trial court’s view is a reasonable possible view, it should not be displaced merely because another view is available.

Interference is warranted where the acquittal is perverse, materially misreads or omits evidence, or where the evidence permits only a conclusion of guilt.

The Court relied on Constable 907 Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, (2025) 5 SCC 433; Babu Sahebgouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 8 SCC 149; Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415; and H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581.

The charged provisions included Sections 323, 324, 354, 504 and 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The Court found that the prosecution evidence was not sufficiently cogent, consistent or corroborated.

Several witnesses, including alleged eyewitnesses and mahazar witnesses, did not support the prosecution.

The medical evidence recorded simple injuries and did not, in the Court’s assessment, sufficiently support the alleged manner and extent of the assault; the accounts of the witnesses were also inconsistent with the complaint and medical evidence.

The Court further found the complaint and FIR delays unexplained, no adequate evidence establishing the alleged intimidation or insult offences, and insufficient evidence that caste-based abuse occurred in public view.

Given these deficiencies, the trial court’s acquittal was a possible view of the evidence and disclosed no legal or factual error warranting appellate interference.

It also directed the Registry to pay Rs. 10,000 to the amicus curiae and recorded its appreciation for his assistance.