Appellate Court shall not disturb acquittal where prosecution fails to prove exact place of ocular incident.

The State of Gujarat appealed a 1998 judgment and order of acquittal of five accused charged under Sections 302, 323, 426, 452, 147, 148, and 149 of the IPC

The prosecution alleged that on 24.10.1990, the accused arrived on a tractor at the complainant’s property in Rampura, assaulted Punjabhai Narana with weapons including a gun butt, an axe, and sticks, and looted grocery sacks

During the pendency of the appeal, respondents 1, 2, 3, and 5 were reported deceased, causing the appeal to be disposed of as infructuous against them; the current proceedings focus solely on Respondent No. 4, Guga Jahan

1. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of Respondent No. 4 beyond reasonable doubt to warrant overturning the order of acquittal

2. Whether the findings of the trial court were perverse or based on gross misappreciation of evidence

The Court applied the standards of appellate review for acquittals under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)

It emphasized the "double presumption of innocence" in favor of the accused following an acquittal, as established in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka [(2007) 4 SCC 415]

The court further relied on Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana [AIR 1995 SC 280] and Constable 907 Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand [(2025) 5 SCC 433], which mandate that an appellate court should not disturb an acquittal unless the trial court’s judgment suffers from patent perversity, misreading of material evidence, or if the view taken was not a possible reasonable conclusion

The alleged initial trigger for the event—commotion at a flour mill—was negated because the mill owner (PW-2) turned hostile and testified he was unconscious during the incident

The complainant's (PW-1) testimony regarding Respondent No. 4 was inconsistent with medical evidence; PW-1 claimed the deceased was hit on the right side of the body with a stick, whereas the Post-Mortem report [Exh-26] cited the cause of death as brain hemorrhage due to a "heavy-edged weapon"

The exactly location of the offence remained unproven as bloodstains were found outside the premises

Most independent panch witnesses turned hostile regarding the recovery of weapons

The court determined that the prosecution failed to prove either the motive or the specific role of Respondent No. 4 in causing the fatal injury

The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal of Respondent No. 4 was upheld