Appellate Court shall not disturb acquittal where witness conduct and investigation gaps create reasonable doubt.

The State appealed against the acquittal of the respondent (accused) by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, in Sessions Case No. 75/1995

The prosecution alleged that on February 14, 1995, the accused and an absconding co-accused murdered Ramabhai Lakhmanbhai Rabari out of revenge for the victim allegedly killing the accused's father

The accused purportedly struck the victim with a stone and held him while the co-accused inflicted 15 knife injuries

The case rested on the testimony of a sole eyewitness (PW12), dog-tracking evidence, and medical reports. The Trial Court acquitted the respondent on October 4, 1999, citing a lack of credible evidence and procedural inconsistencies

1. Whether the Trial Court committed a manifest error or perversity in acquitting the accused by disbelieving the testimony of the sole eyewitness (PW12)

2. Whether the circumstantial evidence, including the motive of prior enmity and dog-tracking results, was sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt

3. Whether the Appellate Court should interfere with an order of acquittal when two reasonable views are possible based on the evidence

The Court applied Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, concerning appeals against acquittal

It relied on the "five-point canonical test" from Chandrappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2007) and P. Somaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2025), which mandate that an Appellate Court must respect the "double presumption of innocence" and not disturb an acquittal if the Trial Court’s view is a "possible" one

The court scrutinized the evidentiary value of tracking dogs as a weak corroborative link rather than substantive proof

The High Court found the testimony of the eyewitness (PW12) highly improbable, noting that he claimed to watch a 10-minute assault without raised alarm and failed to disclose the incident to authorities until nearly midnight, despite passing a busy road and a High School

The Investigating Officer (PW16) also admitted he saw no one matching PW12’s description (grazing 40 animals) when he arrived shortly after the incident

Regarding the dog-tracking evidence, the Court noted that the dog was made to smell only one of several clustered footprints, and the handler admitted the scent could have been contaminated by road traffic

The Court observed that the initial FIR was based on mere "suspicion" rather than direct evidence. Consequently, the Court held that the prosecution failed to form a complete chain of circumstances

It held that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace legal proof

The appeal was dismissed, the judgment of acquittal dated October 4, 1999, was confirmed, and the respondent’s bail bonds were cancelled