An acquittal must stand where the trial court’s assessment is a possible, non-perverse view.

On 12 May 1999, Ram Lal was allegedly shot inside a passenger train at Bund-Hamirpur Halt by Shiv Lal and Devi Prasad, while Rajesh and Desh Raj allegedly assisted by preventing escape.

The informant, Natthi Lal, and the deceased’s wife, Chhedana, claimed to have witnessed the occurrence.

An FIR under Section 302 IPC was lodged, investigation was conducted initially by G.R.P. Unnao and subsequently by Police Station Achalganj, and a charge-sheet was filed against all four accused.

The trial court framed charges under Section 302 IPC against Shiv Lal and Devi Prasad and under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC against Rajesh and Desh Raj.

Although the post-mortem established that Ram Lal died from firearm injuries, the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Unnao acquitted all the accused on 16 September 2000.

The State challenged the acquittal in the present appeal.

Whether the trial court’s findings acquitting the respondents were erroneous, perverse, or based on misreading or omission of material evidence so as to warrant interference in an appeal against acquittal.

Whether the testimonies of PW-1 Natthi Lal and PW-2 Chhedana were reliable and sufficient to establish the respondents’ participation in the murder of Ram Lal beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court applied Section 302 IPC concerning murder and Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC concerning murder committed in furtherance of common intention.

On appeals against acquittal, it relied on the principles in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, Babu v. State of Kerala, Jayamma v. State of Karnataka, Bannareddy v. State of Karnataka and Tulasareddi v. State of Karnataka: although an appellate court may reappreciate the evidence, interference is justified only where the acquittal is perverse, manifestly erroneous, clearly unreasonable, or based on misreading or omission of material evidence; where two reasonable views are possible, the view favouring acquittal must ordinarily be maintained because acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence.

For ocular evidence, the Court applied the principles in Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, Lallu Manjhi v. State of Jharkhand and Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi): testimony must possess a ring of truth, material discrepancies may undermine reliability, and a witness relied upon without corroboration must be of sterling quality.

The Court also recognised that homicidal death may be proved through medical evidence and that the prosecution must independently establish the identity and participation of the accused.

The Court accepted that Ram Lal’s death was homicidal, as the post-mortem revealed multiple firearm injuries and the medical evidence attributed death to haemorrhage and shock caused by those injuries.

However, it found the alleged eyewitnesses unreliable.

Their presence in the train was doubtful because they travelled without tickets, gave an uncertain explanation for the journey, and their account was inconsistent with the stated purpose of seeking medical treatment.

Their conduct was considered unnatural: despite allegedly witnessing three shots fired in a crowded compartment, neither raised an alarm, sought assistance, informed the guard or driver, or identified the assailants when the railway personnel arrived.

The Court also noted that only two empty cartridges were recovered despite the alleged firing of three shots, the weapons were not recovered, no FSL report was obtained, and two independent witnesses whose statements were recorded during investigation were not examined without explanation.

These circumstances materially undermined the ocular version and prevented the prosecution from proving the respondents’ involvement beyond reasonable doubt.

Since the trial court’s assessment was a possible view based on the evidence, the appellate court held that it could not substitute its own view merely because another interpretation was possible.

The trial court’s acquittal was neither manifestly erroneous nor perverse and represented a possible view of the evidence.

The Government Appeal was accordingly dismissed, the acquittal of all four respondents was affirmed, and the trial-court record was directed to be returned.