An appellate court must not disturb an acquittal where the trial court’s view is reasonable.

Falguniben was found dead by hanging at her matrimonial home.

Her father alleged dowry-related cruelty and a homicidal death, and a complaint was registered under Sections 302, 498A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Sessions Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution case unproved.

In the State’s appeal, the High Court had already recorded that the appeal abated as to respondents 1 and 5, who had died during its pendency.

The State challenged the assessment of the family witnesses, the medical evidence and the potential presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act.

Whether the prosecution proved cruelty, conspiracy or intentional killing by the accused beyond reasonable doubt, including whether the evidence established a basis to presume abetment of suicide under Section 113A of the Evidence Act.

Whether the Sessions Court’s acquittal was unreasonable or perverse so as to warrant appellate interference.

Sections 302, 498A and 120B IPC governed the charged offences.

Section 113A of the Evidence Act permits, but does not compel, a presumption of abetment where a married woman dies by suicide within seven years of marriage and it is proved that her husband or relative subjected her to cruelty; the court must consider all the circumstances.

In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the relied-on circumstances must be proved, point unerringly to guilt, form a complete chain consistent only with guilt, and exclude other reasonable hypotheses.

An appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal merely because another view is possible; interference is warranted where the acquittal is perverse or otherwise unreasonable, bearing in mind that acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence.

The Court found that the sister’s account of beatings and dowry harassment was materially improved at trial and inconsistent with her admission that she had not discussed the deceased’s married life with her.

The relative’s account of harassment was hearsay and lacked particulars of any dowry demand.

The doctor’s opinion was that death resulted from hanging and was suicidal; although the post-mortem records contained irregularities and noted injuries, the medical evidence did not establish homicidal strangulation or an assault followed by hanging.

The postcard and diary were not properly proved, did not reliably identify their author or implicate the accused, and were accompanied by inconsistencies in the panch witness’s evidence.

The Court therefore found no reliable proof of cruelty on which to base a Section 113A presumption, and no complete circumstantial chain establishing the charged offences.

The Sessions Court’s view was a reasonable one, not a perverse view warranting appellate intervention.

The appeal was dismissed; it had previously abated as to respondents 1 and 5.