Appellate Court shall not interfere with acquittal unless the findings are perverse or legally implausible.

The appellant/complainant challenged the judgment dated 25.03.2017 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Amarpatan, which reversed the conviction of Respondents No. 1 and 2 under Sections 323/34 and 325/34 of the IPC.

The prosecution alleged that on 20.10.2010, the respondents assaulted the complainant and one Sandeep (PW-2) with a metal pot (Lotaha) and by biting, following a dispute over bathing at a government hand pump.

While the Trial Court (JMFC) convicted the accused, the Lower Appellate Court acquitted them, citing discrepancies in medical evidence and witness testimonies.

The High Court first condoned a 153-day delay in filing the appeal before hearing the merits.

1. Whether the Lower Appellate Court’s reversal of the conviction was based on a proper appreciation of evidence or was perverse in nature.

2. Whether the prosecution proved the charges of grievous hurt (Section 325) beyond a reasonable doubt given the absence of primary medical evidence (X-ray plates).

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

It relied on the principles established in H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka (2023) and Mallappa v. State of Karnataka (2024), which dictate that an Appellate Court should not interfere with an acquittal if the view taken by the lower court is a "possible view," even if an alternative view exists.

The court underscored the "presumption of innocence" reinforced by an acquittal and the requirement of "patent perversity" for interference.

The Court found the Lower Appellate Court's reasoning to be highly plausible. It noted significant contradictions: the alleged "bite injury" described by PW-1 was found by the doctor (PW-7) to be a mere abrasion.

Regarding the fracture sustained by PW-2, the Court observed that the prosecution failed to produce the X-ray plates (primary evidence), and the pot (Lotaha) was never sent for a medical opinion to confirm it could cause such a specific fracture.

The Court highlighted that the injuries were consistent with a motorcycle skid, a defense supported by DW-1 and not effectively rebutted by the prosecution.

The Court concluded that since the witnesses Rishi Kumar (PW-3) and Ramprakash (PW-4) were not actual eyewitnesses and reached the spot post-incident, the prosecution's case was structurally weak.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of acquittal passed by the Lower Appellate Court. The respondents stood acquitted of all charges.