An acquittal cannot be reversed where the trial court’s view is reasonably possible.

The prosecution alleged that on 24 March 2014, a pickup vehicle struck a motorcycle near Y. Mallapura Gate, causing the rider, Nitin, to fall and die at the scene.

Nagaraj, who was following the motorcycle, lodged the complaint.

The State charged the accused under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 180, 181 and 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The trial court acquitted the accused in CC No. 668 of 2014; the State appealed against that acquittal.

Whether the State had established grounds to interfere with the trial court’s judgment of acquittal.

Whether the acquittal could be reversed under the principles governing appellate review of acquittals.

The alleged offences were under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and Sections 180, 181 and 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The Court also referred to Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act, under which the vehicle owner may be required to disclose the identity of the driver.

Applying 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 Court stated that an acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence.

Although an appellate court may reappreciate the evidence, it should not reverse an acquittal where the trial court’s view is reasonably possible; interference is warranted where the decision is perverse, overlooks material evidence, or the evidence permits only a conclusion of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court found that the principal eyewitness, PW1, had not seen the accused and could not state the vehicle’s exact speed; he also testified that it was dark at the time of the accident.

PW4 did not support the prosecution, while the remaining evidence described the investigation and formal proceedings.

Although the offending vehicle’s registration number was known, the investigating officer had not explained the failure to issue a notice to its owner under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act to identify the driver.

In these circumstances, the Court held that the evidence did not require a finding of guilt and that the trial court’s acquittal was a view available on the record.

The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court’s judgment of acquittal remained undisturbed.