An acquittal warrants no interference absent perversity in the trial court’s findings.

Shiv Pasi appealed the acquittal of Rakesh Pasi and Vikesh Pasi of charges under Sections 364/34 IPC.

The prosecution alleged that Shiv’s son went missing on 9 September 2014 and that the accused had threatened the family; the written information was lodged three days later.

The victim returned after approximately one month and seven days.

At trial, the victim’s account differed materially from his statement under Section 164 CrPC, while the other family witnesses had not witnessed the alleged kidnapping.

The trial court acquitted the accused, finding the victim’s testimony unreliable and the circumstantial evidence insufficient.

Shiv’s appeal followed; the High Court condoned a ten-day delay in filing it.

1. Whether the trial court’s acquittal was perverse or otherwise warranted appellate interference in light of the victim’s inconsistent accounts and the circumstantial evidence

2. Whether the appellant should be ordered to pay costs for pursuing the appeal

Section 364/34 IPC was the charged offence.

Under Section 114, Illustration (e), of the Evidence Act, the court may presume that official and judicial acts have been regularly performed; the trial court relied on this presumption in assessing the voluntariness of the victim’s Section 164 CrPC statement.

For a case based solely on circumstantial evidence, Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, requires the circumstances to be fully established, consistent only with guilt, conclusive, and sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis other than guilt.

The High Court also applied the principles governing appeals against acquittal, relying on H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581, and held that interference was unwarranted absent a basis to displace the acquittal.

It referred to Charu Kishor Mehta v. Prakash Patel and Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India in considering costs for allegedly fictitious litigation.

The High Court found the victim’s trial testimony materially inconsistent with his Section 164 statement and noted that the trial account emerged about six years after the occurrence.

The other witnesses did not establish that the accused abducted or followed the victim; the victim’s brother had only seen them leave by motorcycle after the victim had departed.

The investigation disclosed no trace of the alleged vehicle or its occupants, and the evidence did not complete a chain excluding innocence.

The court therefore found no perversity in the trial court’s assessment or sufficient ground to interfere with the acquittal.

It considered the appeal fictitious and an unjustified use of court time, warranting costs.

It imposed costs of ₹10,000 on the appellant, payable to the Patna High Court Legal Services Committee within one month, with proof of payment to be filed.