An acquittal must stand where the evidence supports two reasonable conclusions.

The prosecution alleged that Prathibha died from stab injuries after going to respondent No. 2’s house, where respondent No. 1 was present.

Respondent No. 1 admitted being with Prathibha but stated in his Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination that she first stabbed him and then stabbed herself.

No eyewitness testified, and no fingerprints were found on the knives recovered from the scene.

The Sessions Court acquitted both respondents, finding the circumstantial-evidence chain incomplete.

The State appealed under Section 378(1) and (3) Cr.P.C.

1. Whether the evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that respondent No. 1 inflicted the fatal injuries on Prathibha, rather than the injuries being self-inflicted.

2. Whether the Sessions Court’s acquittal should be disturbed in a State appeal where the evidence permitted a reasonable view in favour of the accused.

The prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, including in a case based on circumstantial evidence; the circumstances must form a complete chain pointing to the accused’s guilt.

An accused need not establish a defence beyond reasonable doubt and may discharge the relevant burden on a preponderance of probabilities (M. Abbas v. State of Kerala, (2001) 10 SCC 103).

A court must carefully consider an accused’s alternative account under Section 313 Cr.P.C. (Premchand v. State of Maharashtra, (2023) 5 SCC 522).

On appeal against acquittal, the accused has a double presumption of innocence, and where two reasonable conclusions are available on the evidence, the appellate court should not displace the acquittal (Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415).

The Court accepted that respondent No. 1 was present with Prathibha and noted the doctor’s opinion that her injuries were unlikely to have been self-inflicted.

However, there was no eyewitness, the knives bore no fingerprints, and the medical opinion did not conclusively determine who inflicted the injuries.

The Court considered respondent No. 1’s account that Prathibha stabbed him and then herself as a possible explanation, and held that the prosecution had not excluded that reasonable alternative or completed the circumstantial chain.

Given the applicable restraint on appellate interference with acquittals, the Sessions Court’s view could not be displaced.

It directed that the respondents, who were before the Court, be released and set free, and directed the Registry to return the trial court records.