An acquittal cannot be reversed when the evidence permits a reasonable view favoring the accused.

The prosecution alleged that the respondent drove a lorry into a motorcycle at a junction, causing the pillion rider’s death, and charged him under Sections 279 and 304A IPC.

The judgment contains inconsistent dates for the alleged accident: paragraph 3 states 25 November 2018, while the Sessions Court’s reasoning reproduced in the judgment refers to dates in 2008.

The JMFC convicted the respondent; the Sessions Court allowed his appeal and acquitted him on 2 March 2015.

The State challenged that acquittal under Section 378 CrPC.

1. Whether the State had established grounds to interfere with the Sessions Court’s order acquitting the respondent

2. What order should follow from the Court’s determination of the appeal

Sections 279 and 304A IPC concern, respectively, rash driving on a public way and causing death by a rash or negligent act.

In an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court may reappreciate the evidence, but the acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence. If the acquittal represents a possible view of the evidence, it cannot be reversed merely because another view is also possible; interference is warranted where the acquittal is perverse, rests on a misreading or omission of material evidence, or where guilt is the only conclusion reasonably available.

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 Sessions Court treated the evidence as insufficient to establish rashness or negligence: the lorry was travelling on the main road, the motorcycle entered from a cross-road, and the evidence included 60 feet of lorry brake marks but no recorded motorcycle brake marks.

It also held that evidence of high speed alone did not establish rash or negligent driving.

After independently reappreciating the evidence, the High Court found no legal or factual error in that assessment and no basis to conclude that the acquittal was perverse or that conviction was the only possible view.

The Sessions Court’s acquittal therefore remained undisturbed.