Appellate interference with acquittal is impermissible unless trial court findings are demonstrably perverse or impossible.

On December 15, 2024, a decomposed body tied with stones was discovered in Jisfari Dam

The deceased was later identified as Chudru Ram, who had been missing for approximately 15 days

The prosecution alleged that the respondents murdered the deceased with a wooden stick (sarei danda) and disposed of the body to conceal the crime

Following an investigation, the respondents were charged under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The Trial Court, in its judgment dated December 9, 2025, acquitted the respondents, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt

The State subsequently filed the present petition seeking leave to appeal the acquittal, along with an application to condone an eight-day delay in filing

Whether the eight-day delay in filing the petition for leave to appeal should be condoned.

Whether the State provided sufficient grounds to grant leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal, specifically regarding the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence.

The court examined charges under Sections 103(1) (murder), 238 (causing disappearance of evidence), and 3(5) (joint liability) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

Regarding the scope of appellate interference in acquittals, the court relied on the precedent set in State of Rajasthan v. Kistoora Ram (2022 SCC OnLine SC 984), which mandates that an acquittal cannot be disturbed unless the trial court's view is "impossible or perverse"

The court also applied the established principles of circumstantial evidence, which require a "complete chain" of events pointing unerringly to the guilt of the accused and excluding every other hypothesis

The High Court first condoned the eight-day delay, finding sufficient cause

On the merits of the leave to appeal, the Court observed that although the medical evidence by PW-09 confirmed the death was homicidal due to strangulation, the prosecution failed to establish a nexus between the accused and the crime

The Court noted that the case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence; however, key prosecution witnesses (PW-02, PW-03, and PW-04) turned hostile, particularly regarding the identification of the gamcha used to tie the stones

Furthermore, the forensic examination of the seized wooden stick failed to detect human blood, significantly weakening the recovery evidence

The Court reasoned that the Trial Court’s findings were plausible because the memorandum statements and seizures lacked independent corroboration and the chain of circumstances remained broken

It held that the Trial Court’s view was a reasonable and plausible interpretation of the evidence on record

The Court concluded that there was no perversity, illegality, or material irregularity in the impugned judgment that would warrant appellate interference

The application for leave to appeal was rejected as devoid of merit