Appellate Court shall not interfere in acquittal where Trial Court's view is plausible and reasonable.

The State filed an application under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. seeking leave to appeal against the judgment dated 22.10.2016 passed by the JMFC, Nasrullaganj

The prosecution alleged that on 19.06.2010, the respondents assaulted the complainant, Gowardhan Nai, with a knife and slaps following a property dispute

After a trial involving oral and medical evidence, the trial court acquitted the respondents, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges under Sections 294 and 324/34 of the IPC beyond reasonable doubt

During the pendency of the matter, the complainant expired and could not be examined

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned under I.A. No. 3304/2018?

2. Whether the State should be granted leave to appeal against the acquittal based on the alleged misappreciation of evidence by the trial court?

3. Whether the findings of the trial court were perverse or patently illegal warranting interference by the High Court?

The Court applied Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding leave to appeal against acquittal

It relied on the established principle that an order of acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence

Tota Singh and Another v. State of Punjab (1987) 2 SCC 529, which dictates that if two views are possible on the evidence, the view favourable to the accused must be adopted, and appellate interference is only justified if the judgment is manifestly erroneous or perverse

The Court first condoned the delay in filing based on the OIC's affidavit

On the merits, the Court observed that the trial court’s decision was grounded in material contradictions found in the testimonies of PW-1 (Santoshi Bai) and PW-4 (Vipin Sen) regarding the time, place, and manner of the incident

The Court noted that the complainant's death prevented his examination, further weakening the prosecution's link

The High Court found that the trial court had properly evaluated the deficiencies in evidence and that the State failed to demonstrate any "perversity" or "manifest illegality" in the acquittal

Since the view taken by the trial court was "plausible and reasonable," the High Court held it could not substitute its own view to grant leave to appeal

The Court held that no sufficient grounds existed under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. to interfere with the trial court's judgment, as the findings were supported by reasoning and did not result in a miscarriage of justice