Appellate Court shall not disturb acquittal if the trial court’s view is a plausible one.

The complainant, Shailendrasinh (a watchman), suspected his wife, Sonalben (Accused No. 1), of having an illicit relationship with Sandip, a driver (Accused No. 2)

On August 16, 2001, the complainant allegedly confronted Accused No. 2 about the affair, leading to a scuffle

It was alleged that Accused No. 2 pinned him down while Accused No. 1 poured acid from a bathroom bottle into his mouth

The complainant claimed he escaped on a bicycle, visited family members, and eventually admitted himself to Civil Hospital after traveling approximately 25 kilometers

The trial court (Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar) acquitted both accused of charges under Sections 307, 504, 323, and 114 of the IPC on April 30, 2003

1. Whether the prosecution proved the charges under Section 307 (Attempt to Murder) and other ancillary sections beyond a reasonable doubt

2. Whether the appellate court should interfere with a judgment of acquittal if the trial court’s view is found to be a "possible view" based on the evidence

The court primarily applied Section 307 of the IPC regarding attempt to murder and Sections 323, 504, and 114

Procedurally, the court relied on Section 378(1)(3) of the CrPC regarding appeals against acquittal

Juridically, the court applied the "double presumption of innocence" principle as established in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, which holds that an acquittal strengthens the initial presumption of innocence

It further applied the doctrine from State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram @ Vishnu Dutta, stating that an appellate court should not disturb an acquittal unless there are substantial and compelling reasons and the judgment is patently perverse

The Court found the complainant’s testimony (PW-1) to be self-contradictory regarding the timing and circumstances of catching his wife with Accused No. 2

The Court noted a high degree of implausibility in the complainant’s conduct: despite suffering internal acid burns, he allegedly rode a bicycle for 25 kilometers to visit various relatives before seeking medical aid

Medical evidence from the Doctor (PW-27) weakened the case, as the complainant lacked external acid stains, stomach swelling, or dental looseness typically associated with hydrochloric acid consumption

The Doctor admitted the possibility of self-consumption/suicide attempt

Furthermore, the ongoing matrimonial litigation (Section 498 IPC) suggested a motive for false implication

The court concluded that since two views were possible, the one favoring the accused must prevail

It held that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of Section 307 IPC beyond reasonable doubt

The Court reaffirmed that interference with an acquittal is only warranted if the judgment is "patently perverse" or based on a misreading of evidence, which was not the case here

The acquittal of the respondents-accused by the trial court was confirmed