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

The prosecution alleged that during an Anjaneya Swamy procession on 6 May 2012, the priest refused to accept a pooja plate offered by PW1, a member of the Holeya community, and that accused persons opposed the procession entering the Harijana street and the priest accepting offerings from that community.

At a village meeting the next morning, the accused allegedly maintained that position and threatened opposition to the proposed practice.

PW1 lodged a complaint on 20 May 2012; the accused were charged under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and Sections 153A, 506, 114 read with Section 149 of the IPC.

The trial court acquitted all 25 accused.

The State appealed under Section 378 CrPC, contending that the evidence had not been properly appreciated and that the delay in filing the complaint was satisfactorily explained.

Whether the State had established grounds to interfere with the trial court’s acquittal.

Whether the trial court’s assessment of the evidence disclosed an error warranting reversal of the acquittal.

The appeal was brought under Section 378 CrPC. The Court applied the principles governing appeals against acquittal: although an appellate court may reappraise the evidence, the acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence, and an acquittal should not be reversed if the trial court’s view is a reasonable one.

Interference is warranted where the acquittal is patently perverse, rests on a misreading or omission of material evidence, or where the only reasonable conclusion on the evidence is guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court relied on Constable 907 Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, (2025) 5 SCC 433; Babu Sahebgouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 8 SCC 149; Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415; and H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581.

The trial court found that, although several witnesses supported PW1 in examination-in-chief, they admitted in cross-examination that accused No. 25 had said he would take the pooja articles and perform the pooja, without uttering the other alleged words.

It also considered that the dispute at the next day’s meeting concerned the community’s demands about the priest accepting the plate and the procession entering the Harijana street.

On that evidence, the trial court concluded that the prosecution had not proved caste-based abuse in public view, promotion of enmity, criminal threat, or abetment beyond reasonable doubt.

Applying the restricted appellate standard for acquittals, the High Court held that the trial court had properly assessed the evidence and found no legal or factual error justifying interference.

It also directed the Registry to pay the appointed amicus curiae ₹10,000.