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

The informant, Saraswati Devi, alleged that her son Suraj Kumar’s wife and her relatives had pressured him to live at his in-laws’ home and, when he went there to meet his children, assaulted and strangled him before placing his body on a railway track to make his death appear to be suicide

The police filed a chargesheet against respondents 2–4, who were tried and acquitted of charges under Sections 302, 34 and 201 IPC

Saraswati Devi appealed the acquittal.

The High Court noted that there was no eyewitness, the FIR was registered 29 hours after the occurrence, and the body was found near a railway track.

Whether the trial court’s acquittal was a plausible view of the evidence or was affected by perversity warranting appellate interference

Whether the prosecution evidence established the respondents’ guilt under Sections 302, 34 and 201 IPC beyond reasonable doubt

The respondents had been charged under Sections 302, 34 and 201 IPC.

In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court may reappraise the evidence, but must first consider whether the trial court properly assessed the material evidence and whether its findings are illegal, erroneous or perverse; an acquittal should not be reversed merely because another view is possible.

Where two views are reasonably possible, the view favouring the accused prevails, and the acquittal further reinforces the presumption of innocence.

The High Court found no basis to displace the trial court’s assessment.

The prosecution had not established that Suraj was living at his matrimonial home before the occurrence, that a panchayati had taken place, or that he was last seen with the respondents before his death; no witness saw how he or his body reached the railway track.

Given these evidentiary gaps, the allegations did not establish the respondents’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the trial court’s acquittal was a permissible view rather than a perverse one.

It directed that the trial court record be transmitted to the court concerned with a copy of the judgment.