An acquittal must stand where the trial court’s view is a possible one.

The appeals arose from the prosecution for the fatal shooting of Bharat Kumar Rai on 30 May 2013.

The informant alleged that Kedar Rai and Shivji Rai restrained the deceased while Kanhaiya Rai shot him.

The trial court acquitted Kedar Rai of the charges under Sections 304 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act, but convicted Kanhaiya Rai under those provisions and sentenced him to imprisonment already undergone, with fines

Ravindra Rai appealed in one matter against the order concerning Kanhaiya Rai’s sentence and in the other against Kedar Rai’s acquittal

The High Court considered the evidence, including the informant’s account, the other prosecution witnesses, medical evidence and the investigating officers’ testimony

1. Whether the trial court’s acquittal of Kedar Rai was based on a view of the evidence that warranted interference in an appeal against acquittal

2. Whether the prosecution evidence and investigative circumstances provided grounds to interfere with the challenged order concerning Kanhaiya Rai’s sentence

The prosecution case invoked Sections 302/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act; the trial court ultimately convicted Kanhaiya Rai under Section 304 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act

In assessing the prosecution evidence, the Court applied the principle that delay in lodging an FIR is not, by itself, fatal, but may affect the prosecution case where witness credibility is doubtful; it relied on Chotkau v. State of U.P., (2023) 6 SCC 742, and the passage from Meharaj Singh v. State of U.P., (1994) 5 SCC 188, concerning prompt FIR registration and the risks of embellishment

For the appeal against acquittal, the Court applied H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581: an appellate court may reappreciate the evidence, but must not reverse an acquittal if the trial court’s view is a possible one; interference is justified only where the evidence permits no conclusion other than guilt beyond reasonable doubt

The Court found material reasons to doubt the prosecution account: the informant’s descriptions of the occurrence and where his statement was recorded were inconsistent; witnesses were connected to the parties and the admitted enmity required cautious assessment; and the timing and recording of statements, particularly that of PW-4, undermined their reliability

The investigating evidence also disclosed no recorded finding of blood or recovery of an empty cartridge at the scene, and the alleged firearm was not seized

The Court therefore found no perversity in the trial court’s assessment or basis to disturb the acquittal under the principles governing appeals against acquittal

It expressly stated that it was not commenting on Kanhaiya Rai’s conviction or sentence, as he had not appealed

It made no determination on the merits of Kanhaiya Rai’s conviction or sentence, which remained outside the scope of its stated review

The Court also directed that the failure to tag the appeals despite an earlier judicial order be brought to the Registrar General’s notice for appropriate administrative consideration