Appellate courts cannot overturn acquittals merely because another view of the evidence is possible.

On 12 January 2005, Rakesh Kumar Gupta sustained three firearm injuries at his shop in New Kondli, Delhi, allegedly inflicted by Rajender Singh and Virender Singh Rawat. A country-made pistol was recovered from the site, and the injured was taken to Metro Hospital, where his MLC recorded that he had been fired upon by “some unknown persons”.

The respondents were arrested on 15 January 2005 pursuant to the injured’s statement, and were charged under Sections 307, 452 and 34 of the IPC and Sections 27, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act; a separate charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act was framed against Virender Singh Rawat.

The prosecution examined 26 witnesses, including the injured witness, alleged eyewitnesses, doctors and an FSL expert. By judgment dated 19 July 2017, the Trial Court acquitted the respondents, finding that the injured’s testimony contained material contradictions and improvements, the eyewitness evidence was unreliable, the weapon was not satisfactorily connected with the respondents, and the FSL evidence raised doubts regarding the chain of custody and possible interpolation in the laboratory records.

The State preferred an appeal under Section 378(1) Cr.P.C. against the acquittal.

1. Whether the Trial Court was justified in disbelieving the testimony of the injured witness and the alleged eyewitnesses because of material contradictions, improvements and doubtful identification?

2. Whether the medical, ballistic and forensic evidence sufficiently connected the respondents with the firearm assault?

3. Whether the Trial Court’s acquittal was perverse or manifestly unsustainable so as to warrant interference in an appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C.?

The Court applied Sections 378(1) and 384 Cr.P.C. governing appeals against acquittal and appellate powers; Sections 307, 452 and 34 IPC concerning attempt to murder, house-trespass and common intention; and Sections 27, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act concerning use and possession of firearms.

It reiterated that an appellate court may reappreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal but should interfere only where the Trial Court’s view is not a possible or plausible view, is perverse, or rests on a manifest error of law or wholly unsustainable appreciation of evidence. An acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence, and where two reasonable views are possible, the view favouring acquittal should ordinarily prevail. The Court relied on Mohan v. State of Karnataka, (2022) 12 SCC 619, Anwar Ali v. State of H.P., (2020) 10 SCC 166, Bhupatbhai Bachubhai Chavda v. State of Gujarat, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 523, Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala, (2022) 8 SCC 440, and State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran, (2007) 3 SCC 755.

The Court also applied the principle that suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court found that the injured witness’s account materially changed across his statements dated 14 January, 2 June and 20 September 2005 and his deposition in court. The alleged motive, monetary demands for compromise and the precise attribution of individual shots were introduced or altered at different stages, undermining his reliability.

The initial Metro Hospital MLC recorded that the firing was by unknown persons and did not name either respondent; the later MLC prepared nearly two months after the incident, naming the respondents and classifying the injuries as dangerous, raised further doubt.

The alleged eyewitnesses did not provide dependable identification: PW-7 admitted that he could not properly see towards the injured’s shop and had initially stated that the assailants’ faces were only partially visible, while PW-14 had seen the assailants only after returning from a tea shop. Both witnesses referred to monkey caps and the incident occurred at approximately 8:00 p.m., making identification doubtful.

The forensic evidence established that the recovered firearm could have fired certain cartridges, but discrepancies in the receipt and custody of the cartridges, including an apparent insertion in the FSL register, weakened the evidentiary value of the ballistic report.

In these circumstances, the Trial Court’s conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove the respondents’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt was a plausible view and could not be characterised as perverse.

The Trial Court’s acquittal was a possible and plausible view based on the evidentiary deficiencies and did not warrant appellate interference under Section 378 Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, the State’s appeal was dismissed, pending applications were disposed of, and the respondents’ personal and surety bonds were discharged.