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

Malti Devi appealed the acquittal of Devgan Kharwar and Bhima Kharwar in a prosecution arising from the deaths of Raghubir Kharwar and Seema Devi.

The prosecution alleged that the respondents and others forcibly entered the deceased couple’s home, removed them, and assaulted them with sharp weapons; Devgan was also alleged to have fired a pistol and fatally assaulted Raghubir.

The Trial Court accepted that both deaths were homicidal but found the evidence insufficient to establish the respondents’ involvement beyond reasonable doubt, and acquitted them of the charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 302 and 452 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The appeal challenged that acquittal.

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the respondents participated in the double murder and were members of the alleged unlawful assembly.

2. Whether the Trial Court’s acquittal was a reasonably possible view of the evidence, such that appellate interference was unwarranted.

The Court considered the charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 302 and 452 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act; it emphasized that proof of homicidal death does not, by itself, establish the identity or participation of the assailants, and that Section 149 IPC requires reliable proof of membership of the unlawful assembly and the necessary connection to its common object.

On appeals against acquittal, the appellate court may review and reappreciate the evidence, but must account for the strengthened presumption of innocence following acquittal; where two reasonable views are possible, the acquittal should not be disturbed.

The Court also stated that a related or interested witness is not to be rejected solely because of that relationship, but the testimony must be carefully scrutinized against the surrounding evidence.

The post-mortem and inquest evidence established that both deaths were homicidal, but the Court found that the evidence linking the respondents to the killings remained doubtful.

The eyewitnesses differed on their positions and opportunity to observe the occurrence, while the investigating officer found no broken door or bedding at the alleged place of entry and did not adequately corroborate the claimed bloodstains and physical trail.

Material omissions in the witnesses’ earlier statements, inconsistencies about the alleged motive and occurrence, investigative deficiencies, and the unexplained circumstances surrounding the seizure of the empty cartridge and delayed transmission of the FIR further undermined the prosecution account.

The defence evidence also raised doubt about the witnesses’ presence at the scene.

Taken together, these circumstances supported the Trial Court’s finding that the respondents’ participation and membership of the alleged unlawful assembly had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt; that finding was a reasonably possible view and was not perverse.

Finding no compelling basis to interfere with the acquittal, it affirmed the Trial Court’s judgment and dismissed the appeal.