An acquittal cannot be reversed where the trial court’s view is plausible and non-perverse.

The appellant alleged that on 19 September 2017, while at his workplace at the C.C.L. Office, respondents 2–5 and two unknown persons dragged and assaulted him.

He alleged that respondent 2 struck the back of his head with a stone and respondent 3 hit his waist with a rod, following a demand for ₹20 lakhs concerning land said to have enabled the appellant to obtain his C.C.L. job.

The police registered a case under Sections 147, 323, 353, 341, 307, 385, 504, 506 and 149 IPC, and the matter proceeded to trial.

The trial court acquitted respondents 2–5 on 20 February 2024, finding that the prosecution had not proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt; the appellant challenged that acquittal.

Whether the trial court’s acquittal of respondents 2–5 was liable to be reversed on appeal.

Whether the prosecution evidence established the alleged assault and other charged offences beyond reasonable doubt.

The respondents had been charged under Sections 147, 323, 353, 341, 307, 385, 504, 506 and 149 of the IPC.

In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court may reappreciate the evidence, but interference is warranted where the trial court’s view is illegal, erroneous or perverse; acquittal should not be reversed merely because another view is possible. Where two equally plausible views arise, the view favouring the accused should prevail (Mallappa v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 3 SCC 544, paras 26–27).

The presumption of innocence is reinforced by acquittal, and appellate interference is justified only where the acquittal is perverse (State of Odisha v. Banabihari Mohapatra, (2021) 15 SCC 268, para 32).

The High Court noted that the injury report was prepared on 29 November 2017, approximately two months after the alleged incident, and recorded injuries that were superficial and simple and could have resulted from other accidents.

It also noted that the Investigating Officer had seized no material from the place of occurrence or from the respondents.

Applying the restricted standard for appellate review of acquittals, the Court found that the trial court had properly assessed the evidence and that its view was a permissible one; the evidence did not warrant disturbing the acquittal.

It affirmed the acquittal dated 20 February 2024 and dismissed the appeal; any pending interlocutory application was disposed of, and the trial court record was directed to be returned.