Appellate Court shall not disturb acquittal where trial court findings are reasoned and lacks perversity.

On January 13, 2013, the informant (Sahil) and the victim (Saurabh) were returning from a nursery when some mud accidentally fell near the respondent’s house. It is alleged that the respondent abused Sahil, assaulted him with a stick (injuring his left elbow), and instigated a pet dog to bite Saurabh’s right knee

The Trial Court (JMFC Anuppur) acquitted the respondent of charges under Sections 294, 323, 324, and 506 of the IPC on July 20, 2017

The State filed this petition under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. seeking leave to appeal, contending that the evidence was not appreciated in the proper perspective

1. Whether the Trial Court’s findings were perverse or palpably wrong so as to warrant interference in an order of acquittal by the High Court.

2. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in light of delayed FIR and lack of medical corroboration.

The Court applied the principles governing appeals against acquittal under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C.

Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat, which mandates that an appellate court must first determine if trial findings are "palpably wrong" or "manifestly erroneous" before disturbing an acquittal

Ajit Savant Majagvai v. State of Karnataka, establishing that the presumption of innocence is reinforced by an acquittal and that if two reasonable views exist, the one favoring the accused must be adopted

Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of W.B., affirming that interference is impermissible unless findings are impossible or illegal

The High Court observed that there was an unexplained delay of two days in lodging the FIR, despite the police station being only 10 km away

The medical testimony of the doctor failed to corroborate the injuries alleged by the complainant

The Court noted that the complainant was a tenant of the respondent’s brother-in-law and that there was a history of "previous enmity" between the parties, suggesting a motive for false implication

There were also material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses

Applying the cited precedents, the Court found that the Trial Court had assigned "cogent reasons" for disbelieving the evidence and that the view taken by the trial court was a "reasonable" one that did not suffer from perversity

The Court upheld the double presumption of innocence in favor of the respondent and found no illegality in the impugned judgment. Consequently, the petition was dismissed