An acquittal cannot be reversed when the trial court adopts a reasonably possible view.

The prosecution alleged that, during an inspection of an ice factory on 14 November 2008, BESCOM officials found the electricity meter tampered with by inserting a silk cord through a removed screw hole to stop the meter’s disc.

The alleged theft was said to involve an unauthorised load of 6.5 HP and cause a loss of ₹1,82,894; the accused were charged under Sections 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

The trial court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution evidence insufficient and granting the benefit of doubt.

The State appealed under Section 378 CrPC, contending that the trial court had improperly assessed the evidence, particularly that of PW4.

Whether the State had established grounds for appellate interference with the acquittal

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

Sections 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003, formed the basis of the alleged offences of electricity theft and related interference.

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 trial court’s view is a reasonably possible view on the evidence, it cannot be displaced merely because another view is also possible. Interference is warranted where the acquittal is patently perverse, rests on a misreading or omission of material evidence, or where the evidence permits only a conclusion of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court relied on *Constable 907 Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand*, *Babu Sahebgouda Rudragaudar v. State of Karnataka*, *Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka*, and *H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka*.

The trial court considered the absence of photographs of the allegedly tampered meter, evidence that the factory was closed and its machines were not running at inspection, the lack of clarity about the period of the alleged theft, and PW4’s limited knowledge of the mahazar.

It also considered the dispute between the accused and the building owner concerning the premises.

On reappreciating the evidence, the High Court found no legal or factual error in the trial court’s assessment and concluded that its view was a possible one under the principles governing appeals against acquittal.

The acquittal was therefore left undisturbed.