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

The complainant, Varshaben Sureshbhai Sarpariya, lodged FIR I-C.R. No. 4 of 2010 at Bhadla Police Station alleging that the respondents, suspecting that the complainant’s brother-in-law had abducted or eloped with their daughter, came to her husband Sureshbhai’s shop, abused and threatened him, assaulted him with slaps and an iron rod, forcibly took him outside the village, and unlawfully confined him.

It was further alleged that respondent No. 2 assaulted and threatened the complainant when she intervened.

After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed for offences under Sections 365, 368, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC and Sections 37(1) and 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

The Sessions Court, Rajkot, in Sessions Case No. 75 of 2010, acquitted both accused by judgment dated 31 March 2012.

The State preferred the present appeal under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The High Court noted that the complaint appeared to have been lodged as a counterblast to an earlier complaint filed by the respondents concerning the alleged abduction of their daughter.

1. Whether the trial Court was justified in acquitting the respondents-accused.

2. Whether the trial Court properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence led by the prosecution.

3. Whether the impugned judgment of acquittal suffered from any illegality, irregularity, perversity, or manifest error warranting appellate interference.

The Court applied Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure governing appeals against acquittal, along with the prosecution’s burden to prove the ingredients of the charged offences under Sections 365, 368, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC and Sections 37(1) and 135 of the Bombay Police Act beyond reasonable doubt.

Relying on Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415, as reaffirmed in Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2022) 3 SCC 471, Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 8 SCC 149, and Ramesh v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 9 SCC 169, the Court held that an appellate court may fully review and reappreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal, but must remember the double presumption of innocence in favour of the accused.

Where two reasonable views are possible, the acquittal should not be disturbed; interference is justified only where the trial Court’s view is manifestly illegal, perverse, or wholly unreasonable.

The High Court found that the prosecution evidence did not reliably establish the alleged assault, abduction, or confinement.

Although the complainant and her husband supported the prosecution version, their evidence was affected by the background of the prior complaint and the possibility that the present case was a counterblast.

The medical evidence did not corroborate the prosecution: the examining doctor stated that Sureshbhai had not attributed his injuries to the respondents and had not named them in the history provided.

The complainant claimed to have suffered a simple injury but was never medically examined, and no medical evidence regarding her injury was produced.

Independent witnesses also failed to support the prosecution case.

In these circumstances, the trial Court’s assessment that the charges were not proved beyond reasonable doubt was a reasonable view supported by the record.

Applying the heightened restraint applicable in an appeal against acquittal, the High Court found no perversity, illegality, or manifest error warranting interference.

It held that the prosecution had failed to prove the charged offences beyond reasonable doubt and that the trial Court had correctly appreciated the evidence and acquitted the respondents.

The State’s appeal was dismissed, the judgment and order of acquittal dated 31 March 2012 were confirmed, the bail bonds were cancelled, and the record and proceedings were directed to be returned to the trial Court.