An appellate court must not disturb an acquittal where the evidence supports two reasonable views.

The State appealed under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the acquittal of the respondents in Sessions Case No. 107 of 2013.

The prosecution alleged that, during a late-night police patrol on 25 October 2012, the accused and a crowd attacked police personnel after officers asked organisers to switch off loudspeakers at a Garba event in Limkheda.

The accused were charged under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 342, 186, 189, 332, 333, 336, 353, 504 and 506(2) of the IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

The trial court acquitted them; the State challenged that decision.

Whether the trial court’s acquittal was unsupported by the evidence or otherwise manifestly erroneous, warranting appellate interference

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the respondents’ presence, identification and participation in the alleged offences

Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers an appellate court to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence in an appeal against acquittal.

However, the accused benefit from a double presumption of innocence, and where two reasonable views are possible, the appellate court should not disturb the acquittal.

The Court relied on Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415; Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2022) 3 SCC 471; Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2024 SC 2252; and Ramesh v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 9 SCC 169, for these principles.

The Court found material weaknesses in the prosecution case: the medical evidence described only simple injuries and did not support the alleged manner of assault; witnesses differed on the use of weapons and stone-pelting; and the prosecution did not satisfactorily establish how the respondents were identified among a large crowd.

The FIR was lodged after a delay that the prosecution did not explain, no independent witnesses supported the case, and the evidence concerning the firearm and recovered cartridges was inconsistent.

The Court concluded that these deficiencies created reasonable doubt and that the trial court’s assessment was a reasonable view of the evidence, not a manifestly erroneous or perverse one.

The appeal was dismissed, the trial court’s acquittal was confirmed, and the bail bonds were cancelled.