An acquittal must stand where the circumstantial-evidence chain is incomplete and the trial court’s view is reasonable.

The prosecution alleged that the deceased was last seen going towards a canal with two accused and was later found dead in the canal with head injuries.

The post-mortem doctor opined that death resulted from the head injuries, which were sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death.

The complainant lodged a murder complaint four days after the incident; the initial accidental-death information had not mentioned the alleged last-seen circumstance.

The Sessions Court acquitted the accused of offences under Sections 302, 201, 34 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

The State appealed against the acquittal.

Whether the deceased’s death was homicidal.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt, through a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, that the accused caused the deceased’s death, warranting interference with the acquittal.

The prosecution must prove every circumstance relied upon in a circumstantial case beyond reasonable doubt; the circumstances must be conclusive, consistent only with guilt, and cumulatively form a complete chain excluding every reasonable hypothesis other than the accused’s guilt.

An appeal against acquittal permits interference where the acquittal is perverse or unreasonable, but not merely because another view is possible; the acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence.

The Court considered the appeal under Section 419 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The medical evidence established that the death was homicidal: the doctor identified multiple head injuries and opined that they caused death, while the possibility raised in cross-examination of an accidental fall did not displace that opinion.

But proof of homicidal death did not identify the assailant.

The alleged last-seen circumstance rested on one witness, who did not see an assault; the initial accidental-death report omitted the alleged last-seen account, and the complaint naming the accused was lodged four days later.

No weapon was recovered or linked to the injuries, the FSL evidence did not connect the accused to the crime, and the alleged land-related motive was unsupported.

These deficiencies left the circumstantial chain incomplete.

The Sessions Court’s view was therefore reasonable and not perverse, so the appellate standard for disturbing an acquittal was not met.

Finding no basis to interfere with the acquittal, it dismissed the State’s appeal and confirmed the Sessions Court’s judgment and order.