An appellate court cannot overturn an acquittal where the trial court’s view is reasonably possible.

The complainant claimed recorded rights and possession over Plot No. 2829 under Khata No. 221 at Mouza Kacherigaon since 25 July 1977.

He alleged that on 1 June 1993 the accused forcibly entered the land, cut the existing ridge, constructed a new ridge encroaching approximately 80 links by 7 links, and ploughed the land, thereby destroying paddy seedlings.

He further alleged that the accused abused and threatened him when he protested.

After the police allegedly failed to investigate his report at Baruan Police Outpost, the complainant instituted a complaint case.

The complainant examined four witnesses and produced one document; the defence examined one witness and denied the allegations.

The learned JMSC, Jajpur acquitted the accused under Section 255(1) of the CrPC for the offence under Section 427 IPC by judgment dated 25 September 1995, principally relying on doubts arising from non-production of the station diary/FIR and non-examination of material eyewitnesses.

Leave to appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC was granted by the High Court on 19 February 1996.

Whether the trial court’s appreciation of the evidence and acquittal of the accused under Section 427 IPC were perverse, unreasonable, or based on misreading or omission of material evidence so as to warrant appellate interference.

Whether the alleged inconsistencies, non-production of the station diary/FIR, and non-examination of material eyewitnesses created reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution case.

Whether, in an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC, the possibility of another view justified reversal of the trial court’s decision.

The Court considered Section 378(4) of the CrPC governing an appeal against acquittal by a complainant and Section 255(1) CrPC concerning acquittal after trial.

The alleged substantive offence was Section 427 IPC.

Applying the principles reiterated in Tulasareddi @ Mudakappa v. State of Karnataka, 2026 INSC 67, Ballu v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2024) 12 SCC 202, H.R. Sundara v. State of Karnataka, 2023 INSC 858, and Mallappa v. State of Karnataka, 2024 INSC 104, the Court held that an appellate court may reappreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal, but must not interfere merely because another view is possible.

Interference is justified only where the acquittal is perverse, clearly unreasonable, impossible, manifestly unsustainable, or founded on misreading or non-consideration of material evidence.

The Court also applied the principles that an acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence and that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The High Court found that the trial court had identified substantial evidentiary deficiencies: the prosecution did not produce the station diary entry or alleged FIR, and several persons who were stated to be present at or near the occurrence were not examined.

The trial court also considered the complainant’s witnesses to be interested witnesses and found that the prosecution had failed to establish the occurrence beyond reasonable doubt.

Although the appellant argued that the trial court had referred to ingredients irrelevant to Section 427 IPC and had improperly discarded the prosecution evidence, the High Court held that the acquittal was not perverse or wholly unreasonable.

Given the long lapse of time and the reinforced presumption of innocence following acquittal, the Court declined to substitute its own assessment merely because another interpretation of the evidence might be possible.

It held that the trial court’s view was a possible and legally sustainable view based on the evidentiary deficiencies and reasonable doubts on record, and that no compelling or substantial reason existed to reverse the acquittal.

The criminal appeal was accordingly dismissed, and the acquittal of the respondents under Section 427 IPC was affirmed.

The two Amicus Curiae were awarded an honorarium of ₹5,000 each.