Appellate interference in acquittal is impermissible where Trial Court findings are based on a reasonably possible view.

On July 30, 2012, the complainant, Shyamkali Baiga, alleged that the respondent abused her and assaulted her with a wooden stick while she was washing rice.

Following an investigation and trial, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Birsingpur Pali, acquitted the respondent on August 29, 2017, citing a failure by the prosecution to prove charges under Sections 294, 323, and 506 Part II of the IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

The State subsequently filed this application under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. seeking leave to appeal against the acquittal.

Whether the trial court’s judgment of acquittal was perverse or based on a misappreciation of evidence that warrants the granting of leave to appeal under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C.

Whether the inconsistencies between the ocular testimony and medical evidence were sufficient to uphold the presumption of innocence.

The court applied Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, concerning the grant of leave to appeal against acquittal.

Sections 294 (obscene acts), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code.

The court relied on the precedent Tota Singh and Another v. State of Punjab (1987) 2 SCC 529, which establishes that if two reasonable views are possible, the view favorable to the accused must be adopted and interference is not justified merely because the appellate court might reach a different conclusion.

The High Court observed that the trial court’s findings were not perverse as they were grounded in material inconsistencies within the prosecution's case.

Specifically, the court noted a significant age discrepancy between the parties that made the alleged incident improbable and found the complainant's testimony to be unclear and inconsistent.

A critical contradiction was identified between the medical evidence—which showed a minor injury above the eye—and the complainant’s testimony alleging an injury to the back of her head.

Since the prosecution failed to bridge these evidentiary gaps, the High Court determined that the trial court’s decision was a "possible and reasonable view" and that the presumption of innocence had been strengthened by the acquittal.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed, the proposed criminal appeal was rejected at the threshold, and the judgment of acquittal dated August 29, 2017, was upheld.