An acquittal must stand where the trial court’s view is reasonable and not perverse.

On 21 June 2015, Nageshwar Prasad, an advocate, alleged that while returning from Hathidah Police Station after submitting a report concerning a prior land dispute, he and his brother were intercepted near their house by Santosh Mahto, Bajrangi Mahto, Birbal Mahto and Dhiru Yadav.

Santosh allegedly assaulted him with an iron rod on the forehead and left hand, while the other accused allegedly assaulted him with sticks; Birbal was also alleged to have taken ₹2,000 from his pocket.

An FIR was registered under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 307 and 379 read with Section 34 IPC.

After investigation, chargesheet was submitted under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506 and 34 IPC, while charges were framed against the accused under Sections 307/34, 504 and 506 IPC.

The trial court found that the informant had suffered only two simple lacerated injuries—one on the forehead and one on the left hand—caused by a hard and blunt object.

It attributed the injuries to Santosh Mahto alone, acquitted Birbal Mahto, Bajrangi Mahto and Dhiru Yadav of all charges, acquitted Santosh of the charge under Section 307 IPC, and convicted him under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC.

Santosh was released on probation for one year and directed to pay ₹20,000 as compensation.

The informant challenged the acquittals and the acquittal of Santosh under Section 307 IPC under Section 372 CrPC.

Whether the acquittal of Birbal Mahto, Bajrangi Mahto and Dhiru Yadav, and the acquittal of Santosh Mahto under Section 307 IPC, was perverse, illegal or otherwise warranted interference in a victim’s appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC?

Whether the infliction of a rod blow on the informant’s forehead, a vital part of the body, by itself established the intention or knowledge necessary for an offence under Section 307 IPC?

Whether the conviction of Santosh Mahto alone under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC, together with probation and compensation, was legally sustainable?

The Court applied Section 372 CrPC, including its proviso permitting a victim to appeal against acquittal or an inadequate conviction or compensation.

The substantive allegations were examined under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC.

For Section 307 IPC, the Court reiterated that intention or knowledge to cause death must be determined from the cumulative circumstances, including the weapon used, number and nature of blows, body part targeted, and the surrounding circumstances; an injury on a vital part does not automatically establish an attempt to murder.

In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court may reappreciate the evidence but should not interfere where the trial court’s view is a reasonable and possible view.

The Court relied on H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581, Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415, and Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2022) 3 SCC 471.

It further relied on Mrinal Das v. State of Tripura, (2011) 9 SCC 479, and Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 10 SCC 450, holding that an acquittal should be disturbed only for compelling and substantial reasons, such as perversity or a clearly unreasonable conclusion.

The grant of probation and compensation was considered under the Probation of Offenders Act and the sentencing discretion exercised by the trial court.

The High Court held that the testimony of the informant, his brother and the supporting eyewitness established, at most, that Santosh Mahto had inflicted two blows.

The medical evidence recorded only two simple lacerated wounds, both caused by a hard and blunt object, and did not corroborate any specific assault by the remaining accused.

Their alleged presence at the scene, without corresponding injuries or reliable independent corroboration of their individual roles, was insufficient to sustain conviction.

The Court rejected the contention that a blow on the forehead automatically demonstrated an intention to kill.

It considered the simple nature of the injuries, the limited number of blows, the short duration of the occurrence, the presence of villagers and the proximity of the police station.

These circumstances supported the trial court’s conclusion that the prosecution had not established the requisite intention or knowledge for Section 307 IPC.

Since the trial court had considered the material evidence and its view was reasonably possible, the enhanced presumption of innocence arising from acquittal barred appellate interference.

The conviction of Santosh under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC was supported by the informant’s evidence, while the grant of probation and direction to pay compensation did not disclose any legal infirmity.

The High Court affirmed the acquittal of Birbal Mahto, Bajrangi Mahto and Dhiru Yadav of all charges, affirmed the acquittal of Santosh Mahto under Section 307 IPC, and upheld Santosh’s conviction under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC.

The order releasing Santosh on probation for one year and directing payment of ₹20,000 as compensation to the informant was also sustained.

The trial court record was directed to be returned to the court below.