Appellate Court cannot overturn acquittal where trial court adopts a plausible view based on material inconsistencies.

The State appealed against a trial court judgment dated 11.11.2015, which acquitted four accused (A1 to A4) of charges under Section 308 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

The prosecution alleged that on 25.02.2007, the accused persons, following a dispute over bus routes at the Nehru Place Terminal, assaulted PW3 (a bus owner) with iron rods and baseball bats, causing head injuries and a fractured arm.

During the pendency of the appeal, Respondent No. 1 (A1) passed away, and the appeal against him abated.

The State contended the trial court failed to appreciate the ocular and medical evidence.

1. Whether there was any patent perversity or infirmity in the trial court's judgment of acquittal that warrants interference by the Appellate Court.

2. Whether the testimonies of the injured witness (PW3) and eyewitnesses (PW1 and PW7) were consistent and credible enough to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The court applied Section 378 and Section 386(1) of the Cr.P.C. regarding the powers of the Appellate Court in appeals against acquittal.

It relied on precedents such as Babu Sahebogouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka and Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, establishing that an acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence and should not be disturbed if two reasonable views are possible.

Relying on H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka, the court noted that interference is permitted only if the judgment is based on misreading of evidence or patent perversity.

The Court found significant inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case. Specifically, while PW7 (the victim's wife and a police officer) claimed to be an eyewitness to the start of the assault, the testimonies of PW1 and PW3 suggested she arrived only after the incident.

The witnesses also introduced additional alleged assailants (such as "Sonu" and "Murlidhar") who were not named in the FIR or charge-sheet, casting doubt on the veracity of the narrative.

Regarding medical evidence, the court observed discrepancies between PW3’s claims of fresh multiple internal injuries and the medical reports, which indicated that some injuries (such as the radial head excision) were "many years" old.

The Court emphasized that despite the incident occurring at a busy terminal, no independent witnesses were examined.

The Court concluded that the prosecution failed to demonstrate that the findings were manifestly illegal or perverse; thus, the benefit of the doubt rightly accrued to the accused.