An acquittal should stand where material evidentiary discrepancies leave reasonable doubt.

The prosecution alleged that on 10 June 1993 the accused attacked Ramchandra with weapons, causing injuries from which he later died in hospital.

The trial court acquitted the accused of offences under Sections 302 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

The State appealed under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

On appeal, the High Court considered the eyewitness accounts, medical evidence, scene-of-offence panchnama and the trial court’s reasons for acquittal.

1. Whether the prosecution evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that the respondents committed the alleged offences.

2. Whether the trial court’s acquittal was affected by an error or perversity warranting appellate interference.

Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the appellate court to review and reappreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal; however, the accused benefit from a reinforced presumption of innocence, and where two reasonable views are possible, the acquittal should not be disturbed.

The court also relied on the principles for assessing ocular evidence stated in Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 355, including that material inconsistencies may undermine credibility, while minor discrepancies ordinarily do not.

The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and cannot cure deficiencies in its case by relying on the defence’s weakness.

The High Court found material discrepancies between the eyewitness account and the medical evidence: the claimed axe blow to the head was not supported by the post-mortem evidence, and the evidence concerning the time of the incident did not align with the deceased’s empty stomach and urethra.

The scene-of-offence evidence also raised doubt about the location and circumstances of the incident; the eyewitnesses were related to the deceased, their accounts contained material contradictions and omissions, and the deceased’s wife was not examined.

Considering these deficiencies cumulatively, the court held that the prosecution had not established a reliable account connecting the accused to the crime.

The trial court’s view was a reasonable one and disclosed no manifest error or perversity justifying interference.

It held that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and that the trial court had committed no error of fact or law in acquitting the respondents.

The appeal was dismissed, the acquittal confirmed, and the bail bonds cancelled; the record and proceedings were directed to be returned to the trial court.