Appellate Court shall not interfere with acquittal where trial court adopts a reasonable, plausible view.

On November 1, 2011, Ranjeet Rai was shot and killed near Sarenja main road while returning from a rice mill on a motorcycle with the informant (PW-3).

The prosecution alleged that Ram Suresh Yadav, Ashok Yadav, and Jitendra Yadav fired at the deceased, while others surrounded him and exhorted the assailants, motivated by a previous Panchayat election dispute.

The Additional District and Sessions Judge-VI, Buxar, acquitted all respondents of charges under Sections 302/34, 120B/34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act on August 29, 2018.

The informant appealed against this acquittal under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C.

1. Whether the trial court erred in its appreciation of ocular and medical evidence leading to an untenable acquittal.

2. Whether the appellate court should interfere with a judgment of acquittal when two reasonable views are possible.

3. Whether the improvements and inconsistencies in the testimony of interested witnesses created a reasonable doubt regarding the participation of the respondents.

Section 302 (Murder) and Section 120B (Criminal Conspiracy) of the IPC along with Section 27 of the Arms Act.

"Double Presumption" doctrine from Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007), which states that acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence.

Principles from Muralidhar v. State of Karnataka (2014) and Babu Sahebagouda v. State for Karnataka (2024), holding that an appellate court should not overturn an acquittal unless the findings are perverse, palpably wrong, or demonstrably unsustainable.

Evidence of related/interested witnesses requires cautious scrutiny under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The High Court analyzed the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, and PW-7, noting they were closely related to the deceased and involved in political rivalry with the accused.

The court found "material improvements" between the initial fardbeyan and the court depositions; specifically, the initial report contained omnibus/general allegations of firing, whereas the trial testimony introduced detailed, specific overt acts and precise injury attributions.

The court observed that despite the occurrence taking place in a busy market area during the Chhath festival, the prosecution failed to examine any independent witnesses, such as shopkeepers or passersby.

The medical evidence (PW-4) proved a homicidal death but could not independently link the specific respondents to the act given the ocular inconsistencies.

The court determined that the trial court’s view—to extend the benefit of doubt due to the lack of consistent evidence regarding active participation—was a plausible and reasonable conclusion.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of acquittal as the prosecution failed to traverse the distance between "may be true" and "must be true" with reliable evidence.