An acquittal should not be disturbed where the trial court’s view is reasonably supported by the evidence.

The prosecution alleged that, on 30 June 1993, the accused attacked Kalubhai and his nephew Bhurabhai with an axe and sticks while they were returning to their village.

Kalubhai was treated at hospital and later died from septicaemia during treatment.

The Sessions Court acquitted the accused of offences including under Sections 302, 324, 34 and 114 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act; the State appealed under Section 378 CrPC.

Accused No. 3 died during the appeal, which therefore continued against the remaining respondents.

1. Whether the trial Court’s acquittal was perverse or otherwise legally unsustainable so as to warrant appellate interference.

2. Whether the prosecution evidence proved the accused’s involvement in the assault and the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

The appeal was brought under Section 378 CrPC against an acquittal.

The Court applied the principles in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, as reaffirmed in Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka and Ramesh v. State of Karnataka: an appellate court may review and reappreciate the evidence, but an acquittal carries a strengthened presumption of innocence; where two reasonable views are possible, the acquittal should not be disturbed.

Interference is warranted where the trial Court’s approach is manifestly illegal or its conclusion perverse.

The Court found material reasons to doubt the prosecution case: the FIR was not lodged promptly; the medical evidence did not clearly support the eyewitnesses’ account of a head injury; Bhurabhai’s alleged injury was not medically substantiated and his conduct in leaving the scene was unexplained; and the prosecution did not produce records establishing Kalubhai’s condition during his prolonged treatment or examine his wife, who had accompanied him.

The medical evidence attributed death to septicaemia, while the evidentiary gaps left the alleged assault and the accused’s roles unproved beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court concluded that the trial Court’s assessment was a reasonable view and disclosed no error warranting appellate intervention.

The State’s appeal was dismissed, the trial Court’s acquittal was confirmed, the bail bond was cancelled, and the record and proceedings were directed to be returned to the trial Court.