An acquittal stands where material evidentiary gaps leave the prosecution case unproved.

The prosecution alleged that the accused conspired to sell counterfeit gold biscuits to the appellant/defacto complainant, first supplying one biscuit represented as genuine and later taking money for a larger quantity.

The complainant and a witness gave materially different accounts of the number of biscuits involved; the alleged biscuits were then taken during a purported roadside interception by persons posing as police, but neither the vehicle nor those persons were identified or traced.

The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 420 read with 120(B), and 419 read with 109 of the IPC. The first appellate court reversed the convictions and acquitted them. The complainant appealed against the acquittal; during the appeal, proceedings against one accused abated following his death.

1. Whether the first appellate court’s order acquitting the accused was sustainable.

2. Whether the evidence established the alleged cheating and conspiracy, including that the recovered gold biscuits were counterfeit and connected to the biscuits allegedly taken from the complainant.

3. Whether the evidence established impersonation, or intentional aid in impersonation, sufficient to sustain the charge under Sections 419 read with 109 IPC.

The Court considered Sections 420 and 120(B) IPC, concerning cheating and criminal conspiracy, and Sections 419 and 109 IPC, concerning cheating by personation and abetment.

It applied the principle that conspiracy may be inferred from circumstances and the accused’s conduct where direct evidence is rarely available, as recognised in Sanjeev v. State of Kerala; however, the circumstances must provide material supporting the alleged agreement.

The Court also treated police confessions as inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, except to the extent that a fact is discovered pursuant to the confession.

The Court found that the unexplained delay in reporting and forwarding the FIR, together with the conflicting testimony about whether 30 or 100 biscuits were involved, undermined the prosecution case.

The alleged stolen biscuits were not recovered, and the four biscuits recovered from some accused were not linked to the complainant’s alleged loss; nor was there evidence establishing that the recovered items were counterfeit.

The prosecution also failed to identify the alleged impersonators or show that the accused had impersonated police officers, induced others to do so, or intentionally aided them. Apart from police confessions, there was no supporting evidence for the personation charge.

The record likewise contained no sufficient material establishing the alleged conspiracy, including a prior meeting involving A4. In view of these evidentiary gaps, the Court found no basis to interfere with the acquittal.

The complainant’s appeal was dismissed; the appeal against the deceased accused had already abated.