Appellate Court shall not interfere with an acquittal where the Trial Court’s view is legally plausible.

On November 5, 2018, the injured complainant, Revaram, was bathing at a government well when the accused, Sundar Lal, allegedly struck him with a stone after a dispute regarding a goat drinking water.

Revaram fell into the well, sustained injuries (including a head fracture), and was rescued by villagers.

The FIR was lodged after a delay of approximately one month.

The Trial Court (II A.S.J. Jatara) acquitted the respondent of charges under Section 325 of the IPC, citing exaggerated testimony, unexplained delay in the FIR, and lack of physical evidence.

The State appealed this acquittal, seeking leave under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C.

1. Whether the delay of one month in lodging the FIR was satisfactorily explained by the prosecution.

2. Whether the testimony of the sole eye-witness (PW-1) was reliable despite material exaggerations and previous enmity.

3. Whether the High Court should interfere with an order of acquittal when the Trial Court’s view is a "plausible view".

Section 325 of the IPC regarding Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt.

Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. regarding leave to appeal against acquittal.

Principle from State of Gujarat v. Jayrajbhai Punjabhai Varu (2016), establishing that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and a view favourable to the accused must be adopted if two views are possible.

Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of W.B. (2023) regarding the insufficiency of "suspicion" as proof.

Mallappa & others v. State of Karnataka (2024), which summarized that an appellate court should not reverse an acquittal unless there is manifest illegality or perversity.

The Court observed that the prosecution failed to seize or produce the weapon of offence (the stone).

The Investigating Officer (PW-5) admitted that the complainant never showed him the stone and provided conflicting statements regarding whether he was pushed or fell while escaping.

Other witnesses (PW-2, PW-3) were not present at the scene, leaving Revaram (PW-1) as the sole witness whose testimony was deemed unreliable due to proven "old enmity" and "exaggerated statements".

Medical evidence from PW-6 suggested that the head injuries could have resulted from a fall from a height, supporting the possibility of an accident rather than an assault.

The court found the unexplained one-month delay in filing the FIR fatal to the prosecution's case.

The court reasoned that since the Trial Court’s view was a "legally plausible" interpretation of the evidence, it should not be disturbed.

The court dismissed I.A. No. 17224/2022 (application for leave to appeal) and consequently dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 8065/2022.

The acquittal of Sundar Lal was upheld as the State failed to demonstrate any illegality in the lower court's decision.