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

The prosecution alleged that accused Nos. 1 and 2 trespassed into the complainant’s residence and threatened the complainant and another person, demanding money and threatening to obtain and publish personal information.

Accused No. 3 was alleged to have supplied their personal information to accused Nos. 1 and 2.

The State charged the accused under Sections 448, 506 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), among other provisions described in the judgment.

After examining 12 prosecution witnesses and marking 17 exhibits, the trial court acquitted the accused, citing material omissions, contradictions, improvements and concerns regarding interested witnesses.

The State appealed against the acquittal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

1. Whether the State established grounds for appellate interference with the trial court’s acquittal.

The Court considered the principles governing appeals against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC.

An appellate court may reappreciate the evidence, but the acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence; if the trial court’s view is a reasonable view supported by the record, it cannot be displaced merely because another view is possible.

Interference is warranted where the acquittal is perverse, rests on a misreading or omission of material evidence, or where the only reasonable conclusion on the evidence is guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court relied on Constable 907 Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, (2025) 5 SCC 433; Babu Sahebgouda Rudragaudhar 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 High Court reviewed the trial court’s assessment of the prosecution evidence and noted that the trial court had considered the material omissions, contradictions, improvements and conduct of the interested witnesses.

On its own reappreciation of the record, the High Court found no legal or factual error in that assessment and no basis to conclude that the acquittal was perverse or that guilt was the only reasonable view.

The State therefore failed to satisfy the standard for appellate interference with an acquittal.

The appeal was dismissed.